Three Principles Of Parliament Sovereignty

713 Words 3 Pages
The three principles of parliament sovereignty
Parliament sovereignty englobes three important aspects, which can also be considered as the three pillars of this concept. These three principles when brought together forms the supremacy of the parliament.
Firstly, the parliament has the right to make as well as unmake law on anything, it is not limited or excluded from any matters. Its powers reach every aspect of the society and there is no limit on the subject matter on which it can legislate. Taken in a quite extreme example it can be said to have the right to legally make a man into woman, it can even make babies born of a certain characteristics such as white skin put to death but as said earlier it is a very extreme example. Even the
…show more content…
As Sir William Blackstone SL KC (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) an English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century stated, 'true it is, that what the Parliament no authority on earth can undo'(http://www.ukessays.com/essays/cultural-studies/parliamentary-sovereignty.php). If a parliament makes a law on cigarette for example and it is a valid act but a very severe one, the Court cannot interfere by stating that the legislation is too severe, being a valid act it has ultimate power. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker; any other body does not have the authority to judge statutes invalid for violating either moral or legal principles of any kind and there are no fundamental constitutional laws that parliament cannot change, other than the doctrine of parliament sovereignty itself. From this second implication of legislative supremacy three important observations can be made: 1. Courts are bound to apply Acts of Parliament and cannot pronounce upon their validity or constitutionality. 2. Courts are bound to apply Acts of Parliament enacted in proper form and cannot pronounce upon their validity or constitutionality. 3. Courts are bound to apply (properly made) Acts of Parliament, according to their meaning (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0013/P'SOV299.htm). Confirmed by Lord Reid in **Madzimbamuto -> it is often said that it would be unconstitutional, for moral or political reasons, for …show more content…
It cannot be bound by its predecessors or bind its successors. This theory is confirmed by that of Thomas Paine who said 'every age and generation must be free to act for itself, in all cases as the ages and generations which preceded it'(http://www.ukessays.com/essays/cultural-studies/parliamentary-sovereignty.php) The new parliament which will be set up in the future will always have the possibility to revoke past legislations of the parliament provided the procedure to abandon the legislation is followed properly; meaning no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. A recent example is the case of banning of plastic bags in Mauritius; it is a decision that has been taken now by the new members of the parliament which have replaced the old ones after the election and which is meant to be respected even in the future. However latter in the future the members of the parliament can change again after elections and it will not be an obligation for them to respect the decision which has now been taken by the current members if in the future the new members of the parliament no longer find it useful or applicable, the parliament can then repeal or amend it. Parliamentary sovereignty is not bound by any written law even the Constitution in certain countries. The United Kingdom, Finland, Israel and New Zealand are examples of countries which are governed by the concept of the parliamentary

Related Documents