Constitutional objectives (3)
PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY
What is meant by Parliamentary Supremacy
DICEY
- Parliament can make or unmake law on any subject matter
- Parliament cannot be bound by a predecessor/bind a successor
- No one can question the validity of an act of parliament
Parliamentary supremacy is supposed to ensure that power is used fairly
1. Parliament can make/unmake law on any subject matter
- No legal rule to stop Parliament making law about anything
- In theory, parliament could pass a law abolishing women’s right to vote (The Representation
of the People Act 1918)
- Parliament can pass laws that change the constitution and even how Parliament works (The
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949)
2. Parliament cannot bind a future parliament, or be bound by a previous one
- After EVERY general election, the House of Commons can change
- If Parliament can make a law about anything, then it makes sense that each new Parliament
has to be free to do this
- Therefore Parliament although Parliament CAN pass a law that states it cannot be changed,
this cannot be accurate as any future parliament that is supreme could do so
- The Scotland act 2016
Because of (2) the courts developed the ‘doctrine of implied repeal’:
- EXPRESS repeal: Parliament passes a statute that is an alteration to an earlier one, and
includes confirmation that the earlier one is repealed (overturned)
- EG Coroners and Justice Act 2009 repealed s3 of the Homicide Act 1957
- Provocation had been set out in s3 of the homicide act 1957
- Schedule 23 of the coroners and justice act states that s3 of the homicide act 1967 is
repealed
Rule 2- Doctrine of implied repeal
What would happen if the person drafting the statute was unaware of an earlier – different -
law dealing with the same thing?
- How would the courts settle a dispute if both parties in a case could point to an Act of
Parliament to support their position?
- The court is supposed to apply the law, but how can it apply two contradictory laws?
- Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733
- When confronted with two contradictory statutes, the court should ALWAYS apply the most
recent
PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY
What is meant by Parliamentary Supremacy
DICEY
- Parliament can make or unmake law on any subject matter
- Parliament cannot be bound by a predecessor/bind a successor
- No one can question the validity of an act of parliament
Parliamentary supremacy is supposed to ensure that power is used fairly
1. Parliament can make/unmake law on any subject matter
- No legal rule to stop Parliament making law about anything
- In theory, parliament could pass a law abolishing women’s right to vote (The Representation
of the People Act 1918)
- Parliament can pass laws that change the constitution and even how Parliament works (The
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949)
2. Parliament cannot bind a future parliament, or be bound by a previous one
- After EVERY general election, the House of Commons can change
- If Parliament can make a law about anything, then it makes sense that each new Parliament
has to be free to do this
- Therefore Parliament although Parliament CAN pass a law that states it cannot be changed,
this cannot be accurate as any future parliament that is supreme could do so
- The Scotland act 2016
Because of (2) the courts developed the ‘doctrine of implied repeal’:
- EXPRESS repeal: Parliament passes a statute that is an alteration to an earlier one, and
includes confirmation that the earlier one is repealed (overturned)
- EG Coroners and Justice Act 2009 repealed s3 of the Homicide Act 1957
- Provocation had been set out in s3 of the homicide act 1957
- Schedule 23 of the coroners and justice act states that s3 of the homicide act 1967 is
repealed
Rule 2- Doctrine of implied repeal
What would happen if the person drafting the statute was unaware of an earlier – different -
law dealing with the same thing?
- How would the courts settle a dispute if both parties in a case could point to an Act of
Parliament to support their position?
- The court is supposed to apply the law, but how can it apply two contradictory laws?
- Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733
- When confronted with two contradictory statutes, the court should ALWAYS apply the most
recent
