• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent is Parliament supreme?

Extracts from this document...


TO WHAT EXTENT IS PARLIAMENT SUPREME? There are two sides to this argument, one obviously defending that Parliament is Supreme in the law making process, and has utmost authority, the other stating the constraints on Parliament and there it is not supreme. Within Britain, parliament is the supreme law making body. The idea behind this is that the people select parliament and, therefore, the people make the law. We describe this as PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNITY, That is to say that Parliament is the highest power in the land, and shall not be challenged. An example that shows parliamentary supremacy is Cheney .vs. Conn (1968). Within this case the claimant argued that he did not want to pay his taxes because Parliament was using them to fund nuclear missiles, and this was a breach of the Geneva Convention. The court said that "Parliament shall not be bound if it so desired", that is to say it is not for anyone to declare Parliamentary action illegal. This case shows us how Parliament is supreme in the respect no one can challenge its judgement. However, we can see plenty of examples of how Parliamentary supremacy is restricted. Take for example the case of Factatane (1990) In which we see how European law, has a huge impact on the sovereignty of Parliament. In this case we see Spanish fishing companies registering boats in the UK in order to receive some of the British Fishing quota. ...read more.


Bell (1961). Where the defendant was displaying a "flick knife" in the window of his shop with a price tag, but, when question he claimed he was merely displaying it and would have refused any offers made on the item. He was found innocent as literally to sell something is an "invitation to treat" that is making an offer, and the seller may refuse that offer if he so wishes. 2. The more flexible approach - where judges seek to establish the meaning of the law, then apply it to the facts of the case. One could say that this is a restriction as it is down to the judges, opinion over what Parliament means, therefore, we establish that the courts may not always be applying the law, as Parliament so wished them to. Another restriction imposed on Parliamentary supremacy is Human rights. It is argued that there are certain fundamental rights that are possessed by every human being. Logically, one might argue that any law which took away such rights would be invalid. In British Law this is not the case, Parliament could pass any law it wished to pass - however immoral that law might be, and, if the statute is clear, the courts would be obliged to apply that law. The Human Rights Act (1998) came into force in October 2000. ...read more.


The Human Rights Act will not detract from this power. The constraints it exercises over Parliament are Political not Legal." Probably the least important, and final restriction Parliament have over their supremacy is that of Political Reality. The House of Commons is made up of people who are voted into power, the House of Lords now has little real power. The term 'Parliamentary supremacy' therefore tends to mean in practice supremacy of the political party having for the time being a good majority in the House of Commons. The leaders of that party, The Cabinet, decide on what legislation will be introduced. Members of Parliament are instructed when and how to vote by the party whips. The limit on what Parliament can do is therefore in reality set by the views of the Cabinet as to the best political decision. Having said that, a great deal of law is not at all political in content and similar rules would be constructed no matter which political party was in power. To Conclude, One can say that there are restraints on Parliament, and these do affect its supremacy, and sovereignty. However, in my opinion we can say that although these restrictions are there, Parliament remains the supreme law maker and highest body within this country even over Europe. I believe this as Parliament still has the power to pass a statute allowing us to leave the EU, until this is taken from Parliament, I feel it is still the most powerful body in this country. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. Evaluate the extent to which the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign. Consider both legal ...

    call legislation into question over the Human Rights Act 1998, as evidence over the past year suggest this is not a regular occurrence. After the decision in Pepper v Hart, it was stated that the Judiciary could use Hansard (Parliamentary debates)

  2. Describe the formal process of statute creation in parliament.

    If the legislation is misunderstood, the issues can be made clearer by passing another Act of Parliament to amend the original one. Another advantage is that the process provides many opportunities for consultation and discussion, this should mean that the legislation which is passed has been amended where necessary also

  1. "The British Parliament is weak whereas the US Congress is powerful." Discuss.

    Moreover, while the president negotiates treaties, they are only put into effect once the Senate approves them. Compared to the role of the executive, the powers allocated to Congress were substantial.30 This is almost in direct contrast to the UK and prime ministers' dominance in their relationship with the legislature.

  2. Is the Supreme Court a Political or Judical institution?

    The SC ensured that the Electoral College votes and the presidency would be given to George Bush. The Bush vs. Gore case cemented the fact that the Court has a major role in US politics and policy making. 5) In recent years the court has intervened in security issues, which has traditionally been seen as the preserve of the executive.

  1. Public Law

    This limits Parliament to the extent that it now has reduced legislation making abilities as it is to avoid creating legislation which EU law already deals with. When an EU directive is made, Government may also be brought to trial for not implementing the directive, further undermining their authority.

  2. Public Law

    not accountable to them, seems to defy the whole principle of democracy and 'equal rights of participation'. Although in theory parliament creates the supreme law of the land, it is argued that they only create the statutes, it is the interpretation of the judges in the courts which becomes the supreme law (by way of common law and precedent).

  1. 'The government controls parliament but it cannot always rely on getting its own way.' ...

    Norton noted that "the smaller it [an overall majority] is, the more vulnerable the government is to defeat as a consequence of its own supporters voting with opposition MPs." Naturally governments have means to control unruly backbenchers, with three-line whips often issued on matters provoking great strength of feeling, but

  2. Political accountability -Parliament and the courts

    oral questions to Ministers in the chamber of the House of Commons or in the form of written questions. Parliamentary questions are the best means of seeking information about the Government's intentions; they are also an effective way of introducing, and perhaps resolving, grievances brought to MP's attention by their constituents.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work