Parliamentary Supremacy

'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss

The word effectiveness means that a product has the capability of producing the desired result. Effectiveness of Parliament is based around representation, scrutiny, its accountability, legislation and its quality and protection of rights. If they were able to do these to a high standard then they would be classed as being effective.

the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament,”. Later however, he did admit that the description of parliamentary sovereignty has changed from what it was in the year 1885 and parliamentary sovereignty has undergone a change.

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

Parliamentary sovereignty has no set definition, but in Dicey’s view it meant that parliament is the supreme law making body, able to amend or repeal any legislation it wishes without its legal validity being questioned by any other body, including the executive or judicial bodies. It also cannot bind the preceding parliament or the future parliament.

In 1966 the House of Lords announced that it would in future be prepared to depart from a former decision by the House when it appeared right to do so . It is vital that the judges update the law according to the society and values today. An example of this case of R v R where a man was charged for raping his wife. This matter was brought up to the House of Lords, the judges pointed out that the ‘status of a married woman in our law have changed quite dramatically. A husband and wife are now for all practical purposes equal partners in marriage.’ They also highlighted that the common law is ‘capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments.’ This implied that judges (House of Lords) can change the law only if it is a necessity.

‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’

It was, therefore, seen as a breach of judicial independence. However following the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009, senior judges no longer sit in the House of Lords which means are free of political influence and decision making – and in effect – from the legislature as they can speak out against the government.

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.

Parliamentary Sovereignty is the concept that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the United Kingdom. Kellerman, M. G. (2011) argues that since

The first Act of Supremacy was introduced by Henry VIII in 1534 during his rule of England. Later, when Elizabeth I came to the throne, the second Act of Supremacy was introduced to bring back the reforms that Mary had abolished. Both of these acts have many similarities but also some fundamental differences that helped indicate the type of ruler each monarch would be. Before discussing the differences it is important to first understand how the Act of Supremacy came about.

If the judiciary are intentionally straying into matters of governmental policy then they as unelected, impartial adjudicators should only do so when cases arise that call for such action, potentially when governmental action threatens the rule of law – a right afforded to them as a constitutional check on governmental power. While the judiciary can be viewed as in a constant skirmish with the Legislature and the Executive much of the judiciary’s power to interoperate statutes liberally comes from powers delegated to it by parliament .

This meant that Parliamentary Sovereignty was replaced by a Constitutional Supremacy. A Supreme Constitution meant the highest law of the land.