Paper Summary:

This paper examines the assertion that the British government has tried, in recent years, to introduce a kind of written constitution at the expense of parliamentary sovereignty. The paper defines a constitution and parliamentary sovereignty and shows why they are not compatible. The paper discusses the decisions of the British government and offers examples of legal cases to determine whether parliamentary sovereignty is indeed threatened. The paper includes descriptions of famous UK and EU cases.

From the Paper:

"A written constitution seems indeed to be "the very antithesis" of Parliamentary Sovereignty in various aspects."
"Firstly, a written constitution is a constitution written in a single document. This formal document is a set of rules that defines the nation's fundamental political principles. It seeks to regulate the relationship between the institutions of the state - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary- and to define the relationship between the State and the individuals, establishing the powers and duties of the government and guaranteeing certain rights to the citizens. Most states in the world have a written constitution. The fact that it is coherent and easy to understand represents its most obvious advantage."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Walker & Walker's English Legal System, Eighth Edition, Richard Ward. Ed Butterworths.
• Constitutionalism, identity, difference and legitimacy - Theoretical perspectives, edited by Michel Rosenfield.
• Part IV- A Philosophical Reconstruction of Judicial Review, Carlos Santiago Nino
• US National Constitution Center: www.constitutioncenter.org
• The United Kingdom Parliament : www.parliament.uk

Visitors who viewed this Research Paper also liked these:

• Essay # 65395 : "British Parliament"
• Analytical Essay # 126029 : "British, French and Multiculturalism"
• Analytical Essay # 131442 : "British Film and its American Influences"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: