Parliamentary Sovereignty - good or bad?

[albohemia]

Parliamentary sovereignty is a concept of constitutional law which applies to some parliamentary democracies, most notably the UK. Under parliamentary sovereignty the legislative body is supreme to all other governmental institutions such as the executive and judicial bodies. The idea contrasts with the notion of judicial review, where a court may overturn legislation deemed unconstitutional which can often occur in the US Constitution.

Do you think that the concept is an advantageous one or is it dangerous to invest too much power in the legislature?

 

[Little Skittle]

I prefer the three brances with checks and balances.

 

[Glockmatic]

Well the three branch system could fail if all three branches are controlled by 1 party. Personally i like the Parlimentary style system. The leader is openly confronted with criticism and must defend himself on the spot. New-aged laws could be passed instead of going through some 60-70 year olds who have an old way of thinking.

 

[Amara]

What good is having a Constitution if you do not have a judiciary which is able to ensure adherence through exercising its power to invalidate laws? I'm not sure if the only reason I believe that is because I have been brainwashed by all the Constitutional Law cases I have been reading this semester but this is the nature of the Federal system I currently live in. Then again, it does make a lot of sense. The difference between the federal nature of the US and Australia is that the executive and legislature sit together (so they are kinda joined) and the Prime Minister currently dominates both. Yet, as far as the judiciary goes though, I feel it's important to keep it separate - not to sound too nerdy but I think justice demands that it be so. It's at least one way that Parliament can be held accountable.

In the case of the US where the establishment of the Constitution was a product of the will of the people - it was enacted under popular sovereignty, and the role of the judiciary being to interpret law of which the Constitution is a part, then the judiciary giving effect to the terms of the Constitution is giving effect to the will of the people. So if the legislature passes law which affronts the Constitution, it is important that the judiciary be able to invalidate those laws in order to ensure the will of the people be continually enforced.

 

[albohemia]

The doctrine of legislative supremacy is well suited to a centralised, unitary system of government in which the needs of the executive are closely linked with the dominant political voice in parliament: and in which the judiciary exercise an important but subordinate role. Dicey suggested that political sovereignty, as opposed to legislative sovereignty, lay in the electorate and that ultimately the will of the electorate would prevail on all subjects to be determined by a government (although he was referring to Britain)

The electoral system serves as a limitation on the use of legislative powers, but the control which it provides is very generalised and sporadic in effect: and this effect depends in turn on the political parties, on the media, on economic and social interest groups, and on other means by which public opinion is formed and expressed.

I think the argument for parliamentary sovereignty is strengthened if it can be shown that the political system in question provides adequate safeguards against legislation which would be contrary to fundamental constitutional principle or the individual's basic rights. It is, however doubtful that the present system in the UK which relies so heavily on political controls, adequately protects individuals or minority groups who may be vulnerable to legislative oppression. Moreover under parliamentary sovereignty, parliament's importance within government depends less on absolute legislative power than on its effectiveness as a political forum in expressing public opinion and in exercising control over government.