Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Parliamentary sovereignty, also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy, is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies.It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a description of the extent to which the Parliament of the United Kingdom has absolute and unlimited power. It is framed in terms of the extent of authority that parliament holds, and whether there are any sorts of law that it cannot pass. [1]
The House of Lords allowed the appeal. Lord Steyn gave the leading judgment. Lord Hoffmann agreed with Lord Steyn and said the following. [note 1]Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights.
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty required that only Parliament could take away those rights. This is expressed in the Case of Proclamations (1608), the Bill of Rights 1688 section 1, and continually confirmed since in cases including Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate , [ 42 ] and R (Jackson) v Attorney General . [ 43 ]
This is the origin of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty, majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy".
Pickin claimed that the British Railways Board fraudulently misled Parliament when it passed a local act, the British Railways Act 1968 (c. xxxiv), which abolished a pre-1845 provision which stated that if a railway line were abandoned, the land would vest in the owners of the adjoining land.
Parliament was recognised as a forum for the King for "common counsel" in Magna Carta, sealing a tradition going back to the Anglo-Saxon Witan. The principle of a "democratic society" is generally seen as a fundamental legitimating factor of both Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.
Richard Ekins said the ruling "undermines the rule of law and violates the sovereignty of Parliament". [2] According to Ekins, any judge who deliberately ignored an ouster clause "would warrant removal from office in accordance with the terms of the Senior Courts Act 1981".