“A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government and a government is only the creature of a constitution.A government without a constitution, is power without a right”. A written constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. An important theme in the literature is that the UK lacks a codified. A distinction is drawn between a constitution as the rules determining political conduct, which the UK like any other country has, and a codified constitution, that is a single document or collection of documents within which they are contained, which the UK lacks. We kept guessing that can a Witten constitution ensure the smooth working of a system of government? This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution. However, absence of a Witten constitution means that British constitution depends less on legal rules and safeguard upon political and democratic principles. Thus, the resulting vacuum is occupied by the doctrine of Separation of Parliament, the doctrine of Separation of Powers and the concept of Rule of Law. Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, it also include executive or judicial bodies. The concept also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation, and so that it is not bound by written law (in some cases, even a constitution) or by precedent When Dicey wrote Law of the Constitution in 1885, a central part of his work was the sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament. By this he meant that Parliament had and should have the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. His reason for believing this was, in essence, that laws which passed through Parliament were subject to intense scrutiny and this intense scrutiny would ensure that only good laws would make it through Parliament. The first limb of Dickey’s definition, the idea that Parliament's legislative competence is unlimited, is a radical one. A number of cases illustrate specific dimensions of this unlimited competence. In a case called Burma Oil v Lord Advocate  AC 75, the House of Lords had granted compensation against the Crown for damage caused by British forces during wartime. •
Parliament passed that Act, legislating retrospectively to nullify the effect of the House of Lords' decision. The case shows that parliament’s sovereignty is unlimited in time. (Although there is a presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not intend to legislate retrospectively, nonetheless, clear wording certainly can produce a retrospective legislative effect, as this case shows.) •
Legislate to reverse or abolish any rule of common law, or any convention. No one can set aside Parliament's laws - the courts and the "enrolled bill rule" The courts will not set aside an Act of Parliament. The approach was confirmed in British Railways Board v Pickin  UKHL 1,  AC 765. Again the case involved the owner of land affected by railway development, whose rights granted in one statute had been extinguished by a later private Act. He argued that in obtaining the enactment of the later Act the Board fraudulently concealed certain matters from Parliament and its officers and thereby misled Parliament, the Lords rejected this. Lord Simon of Glaisdale said The system by which, in this country, those liable to be affected by general political decisions have some control over the decision-making is parliamentary democracy. Its peculiar feature in constitutional law is the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document