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 means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. ... The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost.
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 ]
The concept of parliamentary sovereignty was central to the English Civil War: Royalists argued that power was held by the king, and delegated to Parliament, a view which was challenged by the Parliamentarians. [7] The issue of taxation was a significant power struggle between Parliament and the king during the Stuart period. If Parliament had ...
Yuan Yi Zhu, a Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Pembroke College, Oxford, argued that this was a misunderstanding by parliamentary authorities due to ambiguity in the judgment, ironically implicating the sovereignty of Parliament contrary to Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the enrolled bill rule; Zhu suggested a short bill should ...
The court cited the Case of Proclamations (1611), in which the High Court of Justice asserted its power to test the existence of limits of prerogative powers, in answering the question of justiciability; in the case of prorogation, use of the Royal Prerogative must have respect for the conventions of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic ...
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the judiciary acting in their official capacity [note 1] suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.
Lord Reid rejected arguments that parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom could be limited by constitutional conventions. In obiter dictum, he also questioned whether the constitutional convention concerning Rhodesia's self-government continued to apply, in light of the Rhodesian government's rejection of British sovereignty through the ...