Mr

"Within a democracy, an elected assembly that represents the people is generally regarded as having authority to make laws that apply to the entire population. But there is no universal agreement that, when such an assembly acts as a legislature, it should have an absolute and unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind and subject matter". (Page 51, Bradley, A. D. and Ewing, K.D. (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th Edition, Longman)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A fundamental feature of most modern democracy's is an elected chamber that is responsible for designing the laws that the entire population should abide by. The focus of this essay is to establish the extent to which these chambers can pass laws on any subject matter, whether there is an unlimited power to pass laws or whether there are any limits on the legislative authority of the chambers. It must be presumed that these powers will alter from state to state and I will try to compare how the presence of a written constitution may affect the power carried by the chambers. Most importantly perhaps, I will discuss in depth the status of the UK Parliament and try to use factual evidence to identify the power that Parliament has when making law.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It is often the case that, in states that are governed by rules set out in a written constitution, the text of the document will identify some clear limitations of the legislative bodies power. For example the US constitution seems to support the notion that it is harder to change laws that are important in governing the people. One mechanism for this is that it may be set out in the document that certain provisions are entrenched and that any appeal or amendment must be made according to a set procedure such as a the need to be ratified by a majority in a referendum.

There is also facility for such 'set procedure' in our own constitution. This has been suggested within the 'manner and form' principle suggested by leading academics suggested by leading academics including Professor Marshall. The principle suggests that the manner and form in which Parliament may legislate may be circumscribed (Page 75; Papworth, N; Constitutional and Administrative Law; Oxford University Press; 2006). Conformation of the principle can be found within the judgement of the A G for New South Wales v Trethowen (1932) where it was deemed that an amendment to the 1902 Constitution Act which specified a manner in which specific kinds of legislation could be passed was valid.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For a Act of Parliament to be passed under the UK constitutional system, it must pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and also receive Royal Assent.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One rule of Parliamentary Sovereignty is that Parliament has unlimited law making power. The principle is clear in that there are no limitations on Parliament when making laws. Though it is difficult to imagine that this could be the case in practice and the principle is no more than theoretical. It must be remembered at this point that parliament should act in the best interests of, and is ultimately accountable to the Electorate and if it were to pass laws that were against the will of the public, the Electorate holds the opportunity at Elections to pass judgement on the Government.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The position in the UK is quite different. Historically it was suggested by the Judiciary that a 'Natural Law' existed which was deemed to judge the validity of Acts of Parliament. Chief Justice Coke stated in the Dr Bonham case: 'For when an Act of Parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void'. However, it is generally accepted that in modern Britain; an Act of Parliament is the highest form of law, and there seems to be no document that would bar Parliament from passing a law that would alter a constitutional value. In supporting this, Parliament, stated nineteenth century legal professor A V Dicey has 'under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever'.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, sometimes described as Parliamentary supremacy, is the principle whereby Parliament is the supreme legal authority within the United Kingdom. The doctrine implies that Parliament is the highest source of law within the UK, and that any Acts passed by Parliament should be applied by the courts; that should not hold an act of Parliament to be invalid or unconstitutional.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It