Parliamentary Sovereignty

StudyBlue printing of Parliamentary Sovereignty html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre, a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code, del, dfn, em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp, small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt, var, b, u, i, center, fieldset, form, label, legend, table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; background: transparent; } body { line-height: 1; } blockquote, q { quotes: none; } blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content: ''; content: none; } /* remember to define focus styles! */ :focus { outline: 0; } /* remember to highlight inserts somehow! */ ins { text-decoration: none; } del { text-decoration: line-through; } /* tables still need 'cellspacing="0"' in the markup */ table { border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; } /* end RESET */ .header { min-width:800px; } .logo { padding:6px 20px 2px 20px; margin:0; font-size:25px; font-weight:bold; color:#808285; position:relative; border-bottom: 1px solid #c5c5c5; } .logo-blue { color:#70adc4; } .logo-desc { font-weight:normal; font-size:19px; color:#cccccc; margin-top:50px; position:absolute; display: none; } .back-button { position:absolute; top:20px; right:20px; font-size:13px; line-height:25px; color:rgb(0,175,225); font-weight:normal; } .back-button a { color:rgb(0,175,225); } .instructions { padding:0; margin:0; width:100%; position:relative; color:rgb(100,100,100); } .step-holder { border-left:1px solid #ededed; margin-left:20px; } .steps { padding:15px 0; float:left; width:24%; border-right:1px solid #ededed; text-align:center; } .steps-01 { } .steps-02 { } .steps-03 { } .steps-04 { } .label { padding:5px 10px; } .print-button { } .print-button a { background-color:rgb(0,175,225); color:white; line-height: 19px; padding:9px 8px 5px 30px; font-size:14px; text-decoration:none; background-image: url(images/printer.png); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 7px 50%; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; } .print-button a:hover { background-color:black; } .theNote .content { width: 8.0in !important; margin: 5px auto; padding:20px; background-color:white; } .theNote .header { border-bottom: 1px dashed #C8C8C8; font-size: 17px; padding: 0 0 10px; line-height: 19px; color: #00ADE1; min-width:500px; } .theNote .body { font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px; padding: 10px 0; } .theNote{ padding:6px 0; clear:both; background-color: rgb(200,200,200); } .theNote h3{ color: rgb(100,100,100); } .theNote h1, .theNote h3{ background-color:white; padding:2px 20px; width:8.0in !important; margin: 0 auto; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1{ padding-top: 10px; font-size: 15px; } .theNote h1:first-child{ font-size: 20px; } .theNote h3 { font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; } #options { border: 3px double #ccc; padding: 5px 12px; margin: 10px 50px 10px 20px; float: left; } #info { border-top: 1px solid #ccc; padding-top: 5px; font-style: italic; } li { margin: 5px 10px 5px 25px; } ul li { list-style: disc; } ol li { list-style: decimal; } img { border: 0; } table { clear: both; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #c5c5c5; border-width: 1px 0; margin: 0; page-break-after: always; } table#page { page-break-after: auto; } td { text-align: center; font-size: 12px; border-bottom: 1px dashed #c5c5c5; height: 1.75in; width: 50%; padding-left: 15px; } .leftside { border-right: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 0 15px 0 0; } .bottom td { border-bottom: none; } .clearfix { clear:both; line-height:1px; height:1px; } img { max-width:80%; max-height:150px; margin:20px; } @media print {.header { display: none; } .content .header{ display:inherit; } table { border: 1px dashed #bbb; border-width: 1px 0; } .theNote{ background-color:white; } } Parliamentary Sovereignty Dicey's Definition Parliament may make or unmake any law whatever - positive limb No person/body is recognized as having the tight to override or set aside legislation of parliament - negative limb412 Further, under the Diceyan model: Parliament can legislate on anything - omnicompetence Not binding on future parliaments - sustains omnicompetence Courts cannot determine that any law passed by Parliament is ultra vires ( Manuel v AG) Legal Sovereignty v Political Sovereignty - limits what parliament can, in reality, do. Lord Hope in Jackson v AG - "PS is an empty principle if legislation passed is so abused or so unacceptable that the populace at large refuses to recognize it as law. Political criticism of legislation Jennings: Parliament passes many laws that people do not want. But it never passes any laws which any substantial section of the population violently dislikes. Eric Barendt describes the UK constitution as a "common law constitution" because sovereignty cannot be conferred by parliament onto itself (bootstraps). PS cannot be a convention because it is enforceable. Maybe another category - Wade - " ultimate political fact". The rule of PS is above the reach of statute. Maybe the enforcement of PS is a judicial convention? Goldsworthy - "the courts can initiate change" away from PS but this would only succeed if the other branches of govt. agreed. Historical Struggle for Legislative Supremacy In 1603, the prerogative powers of the king were undefined. This meant the monarch could declare acts of parliament invalid if they sought to remove the prerogative. A struggle ensued which took the form of 4 events: Case of Proclamations Tax - Bates and Hampden - fixed by A rt.4 BoR Dispensing and suspending statutes - initiating factor in Glorious Revolution Independence of judiciary - Act of Union, 1700 How would this be different with a written constitution? There is no such thing as a constitutional statute. Even the BoR was ammended by the Defamation Act, 1996. Retrospective Legislation powers are also vested in Parliament. War Damages Act and Burmah Oil Willes J ruled that this was "contrary to the general principle that legislation ought to deal with future acts" Legislative supremacy is not limited by international law. The courts cannot hold an act void or invalid on grounds that it contravens principles of international law or treaty obligations. There are no legal limitations to the sovereignty of parliament, but the courts may find an act invalid if it altered the "hypothesis of constitutionalism" (Lord Steyn) on which PS is founded. Entrenchment Why entrench and when? Entrench to protect fundamental rights. Why not? JCHR said it is not "compatible with our tradition of Parliamentary democracy:" How? simple statement as in Act of Union (in this case it was not successfully entrenched) make future leg. dependent on a referendum/super-majority of MPs special parliamentary procedure Is it possible in the UK? Dicey: A sovereign power cannot, while retaining its sov. character, restrict its own powers by any particular enactment. However, if parliament lacks this capacity then is appears to lack full legal supremacy. Wade: 'continuing supremacy..indestructible by legislation" Jennings: 'the courts [should] accept as law that which is made in proper legal form Wade suggests a solution: include fundamental law in the judicial oath of office. This way they are obliged to act to enforce a law, WITHOUT infringing on PS. An act of parliament can overrule this oath and replace it with a new one so PS is not compromised either. Bradley&Ewing: The Doctrine that parliament cannot bind its successors is an oversimplification. Some matters that legislation authorises, once done cannot be undone. By altering the composition of the houses of parliament or procedure, parliament does bind its successors in form - reform of HL under Blair (Hereditary Peers removed), Parliament Acts 1911, 1949 The enrolled act rule has been qualified by the Parliament Acts and Regency Acts. Implications of entrenchment? it may be seen as altering composition or procedures of future parliament, rather than limiting PS parliament acts have done just that the manner in which EU obligations are given effect indicate that a 1972 parliament has constrained later parliaments at least in relation to the FORM in which alterations to its legislation are made will have implications on the enrolled bill rule It would be theoretically possible to entrench judicially enforceable limits on PS if the legislative process has such strucural changes made to it as to make it radically different from the current legislature. Implied Repeal Laws LJ in Thoburn : These instances [of exceptions to IR] are given by our own courts to which the scope and nature of PS are ultimately confided. Simms, Pierson v Secy State, Leech, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd., Witham. The ECA is by force of common law, a constitutional statute. A constitutional statute can only be repealed or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and state by unambiguous words on the face of a later statute. The above approach has not yet been questioned though highly unorthodox. The Future of PS Stays central to the British Const. Codified constitution becomes the source of parliament's supremacy, courts enforce it UK Supreme court emulates the USSC in that it gains the power to rule on the validity of acts of parliament on the basis of rights recognised by common law - Lord Steyn contemplates this model in Jackson. Bi-polar sovereigny - "Crown in Parliamen and Crown in its courts - to which the Crown's ministers are answerable - politically to parliament, legally to the courts" - Sir Stephen Sedly. While higher order law carries substantive baggage, the bi-polar model is purely procedural and located in the realm of constitutional theory.