Essay Example on UK Parliament Sovereignty: Ultimate Legal Authority

Introduction

Parliament sovereignty is a United Kingdom constitution principle that makes the parliament overall legal authority with the mandate to make or stop any law. In general, the courts are unable to overrule the ruling of the Parliament, but forthcoming Parliaments could alter the rules. Only the Parliament has the mandate to make, modify, and eliminate laws. This has made the system a bit different as compared to the United States, where the President signs laws to take effect, and the Supreme Court has the powers to declare that the rules are unconstitutional. The freedom of parliament is the most crucial facet of the United Kingdom's constitution. This paper discusses the possibility of undermining the independence of the parliament as the foundational principle of our law if the executive prevents the parliament from performing its legislative authority as it pleases.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The idea of sovereignty is that the United Kingdom parliament has unrestricted and unlimited powers of making laws. Under this system, the monarch has no mandate to make laws unilaterally, and the courts, on the other hand, cannot take precedence over the laws. Therefore, sovereignty implies that the legislature has supreme authority to make laws, and statutes and the courts have no powers to declare the invalidity of the statutes. Every rule and statute that is passed by the parliament stands to be changed by another Parliament in the future.

Therefore, the United Kingdom Parliament states that no law has absolute powers as a way of offering checks and balances on its work. A sitting parliament can change, modify, or eliminate any statute or law in the United Kingdom, and subsequent Parliaments can carry out the same duties.

History of Sovereignty

The sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament began in the thirteenth century after the regional lords requested to influence how the king was carrying the affairs of the country. Since then, the monarch and the parliament have had a frost relationship with both sides engaged in a constant debate of pull and push. The discussion became intense in the seventeenth century after the English monarchs saw how other kings in Europe wield absolute authority, and they hated the restrictions they were being subjected to back home by their parliament.

To cut down on an extremist parliament, Charles I ordered the parliament to be dissolved, and this prevented them from assembling for the next fifteen years. When they came back in 1940, one of their first duties was to pass legislation that prevented the monarch from interfering with their sittings. Further, they managed to convince the king to acknowledge a constitutional monarch that gave more powers to the Parliament. Since then, the United Kingdom Parliament has held full authority in creating laws, and statutes and the courts cannot pronounce a statute as invalid.

Models of the UK Parliament sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty that is also referred to as Parliamentary supremacy, handles several principles running concurrently. Based on this analogy, Parliament sovereignty remains a complicated concept to be entirely understood. The media portrayal of the Parliament in the recent Brexit debate gave a disingenuous view on the freedom of the UK Parliament, giving rise to numerous misconceptions.

Parliament sovereignty has several faces that consist of concurrent powers with conflicting interests. One example is the uniqueness of the United Kingdom constitution through the steps up to its current form for the past millennium. It should be noted that the constitution of the United Kingdom coded into one document but has a separate uncodified record that holds different views of the functions of a sovereign parliament.

Based on propositions, the parliament has been changing to adapt to the needs of a society that is also in a state of evolution. The sovereignty of parliament and the constitution of the UK are two different entities that are brought together by their everyday matters of administration. The parliament will and its autonomy is tangible subjects even though discussions on the independence of the United Kingdom parliament have focused on theoretical models. It is this mix up between practicalities and theoretical models that have made it a challenge to all steps towards fully understanding Parliament sovereignty.

Doctrines of the UK Parliamentary sovereignty

The orthodox doctrine represents an excellent understanding of Parliament sovereignty. The principle holds that the United Kingdom Parliament has supreme powers to provide legislation on every matter that it deems fit. As such, the doctrine indicates that no other party has the mandate to set aside an Act of Parliament. However, this definition presents inconsistencies because if the Parliament holds unlimited power in matters legislation, then it can set up an Act of Parliament that provides limits as far as the power of the Parliament is concerned. However, to limit its powers, it will no longer be supreme.

Based on this logic, it is questionable if Parliament can set up laws that won't be repealed because, in so doing, it will no longer be supreme. Such acts are referred to as contingently or entrench. The thought of laws being contingently rooted is essential because it helps in understanding the idea of Parliament sovereignty.

Parliament Sovereignty Models

Sovereign and The Constitution Theory

This model holds that the UK parliament is ever sovereign, and therefore it cannot put limits to its power. As such, the courts are only required to adhere to all expressions of the parliament. As the law demands, the most recent illustration of Parliament supports that the thought of implied and express repeal. The idea of express repeal is where the latest Act of Parliament holds that an act that was held earlier has been repealed. This indicates that the Parliament is unable to bind itself since it can repeal all Acts it has set in motion.

The implied repeal, on the other hand, is a state where the most recent Act of parliament holds contradictory views when compared to an Act that was created earlier but did not in any way repeal it. This analogy is a clear indication that the powers of the Parliament to repeal are not restricted to express repeal but also in an event where the court establishes that the Parliament's will has undergone modification based on a later Act.

This model raises several issues that need to be discussed. In the first place, the model falls short in addressing problems of contingent and absolute entrenchment. These are laws that are believed to carry special status, and therefore they are thought to be beyond reproaches like the Bill of Rights in 1688 and the Human Rights Act of 1998. Any attempt to repeal these Acts would have drastically affected the state of operation of the United Kingdom.

This provision is contradicting to the thoughts of implied and express repeal because an Act of Parliament in the future will need to be read in combination with the Human Rights Act provisions that were enacted in 1998. And this will limit the abilities of future Parliaments to set up laws. However, the will of the Parliament is yet to change because section three of the Human Acts is still present, and every successive Parliament has agreed to maintain it unedited.

The following discussion concerning the Parliament Acts 1911-1949 to the case that was heard in a court of R(Jackson) v the Attorney General. The case focused on the ability of the Parliament to make modifications to how the law was set up. In the absence of a stable constitution to spell out how rules are formulated in the UK, the Parliament, while exercising its supreme powers, can make deviations in law-making process and brig about the balance of control amid the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

In Parliament discussions that border on the Queen, it should be noted that Parliament is bi-cameral. Therefore, the decision by the houses to share power is no longer a point of concern. The House of Commons holds the democratic mandate because it is the elected house, and therefore any change in how power is shared favors the House of Commons.

Manner and Form Theory

The second model attempts to develop the ideas in model one and the orthodox doctrine that are viewed as rigid and takes a pragmatic view towards sovereignty. This model holds that the Parliament has the mandate to make laws that advise on how future regulations will be formulated. Therefore, the Parliament can make the process of amending or repealing laws a bit difficult. Under the same breath, the Parliament cannot make things difficult for legislation to be abolished, but it should be noted that these laws carry equal authority. Therefore, no one Act supersedes the others.

The Relationship Between the Parliament and The Executive

The link between the executive and the parliament is dynamic, and there are frequent calls of the amendment that are supposed to alter the relationship based on the prevailing functions of the parliament. The parliament has two integral but contradictory roles. The first one is to hold the executive accountable between elections, and the second one is to sustain the executive. According to Nolan, the task of maintaining the government is not close to the duties of holding it accountable and ensuring that it delivers on the pre-election promises.

The debate on the connection between the executive and the parliament entirely depends on the ones' expectations of the constitution. It is through the British law that a responsible government is formulated. The constitution of the United Kingdom was formulated around the idea of ministerial responsibility because it guided the ministers and ensured their responsiveness as well as stable governments.

The circumstances when the cabinet has wielded more power have been few and ones that were met with strong opposition. When Sidney Low realized that there was growth in the mandate of the cabinet and a waning influence on the side of the Parliament, it was viewed that the power of the executive was undermining the parliament. In the cases when the parliament has been weakened, it has been through the constitution because that is the tool that gives everyone the mandate to carry out their duties.

Conclusion

The constitution, with a few changes since inception, guides the operations of both the executive and the cabinet ministers. And this is because; ministers are selected from the range of members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Parliament needs to maintain its powers of legislation and oversight because it is the fabric of regulations. It formulates laws and gives guidelines through ministers operate.

However, I agree that undermining the sovereignty of the Parliament be allowing the cabinet some responsibilities. There should be no room to weaken the Parliament; it is supposed to formulate laws that govern both including the executive. Therefore, an attempt to prevent the Parliament from optimally carrying out its mandate sends a lousy picture. The Parliament is supreme and should remain so unless Acts of Parliament changes the laws. Any act to undermine the mandate of the Parliament should be opposed because it interferes with the regular running of the government functions. However, this is because the laws that govern the executive are formulated in Parliament are meant to protect and guide the operations of the two arms of government that include the Parliament and the executive.

Bibliography

Allan T, The sovereignty of law: freedom, constitution, and common law (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013)

Gordon M, Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK constitution: process, politics, and democracy (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015)...