Preview

Discuss whether it is possible or desirable to codify the Royal Prerogative.

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1582 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Discuss whether it is possible or desirable to codify the Royal Prerogative.
Under the monarchial constitution of the United Kingdom (UK), the majority of prerogative powers are now exercised by the government in the name of the Crown. There are two principle definitions of Royal Prerogative (RP); that of Sir William Blackstone and that of Professor A.V. Dicey. According to Dicey, RP is defined as the residue of arbitrary or discretionary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown. RP has several defining characteristics - RP is inherent to the Crown, derived from common law, exercised by the government on behalf of the crown, the powers are residual and RP legitimises government actions without the need for an Act of Parliament (AOP).

Before the 17th century, the monarch had all three powers, the legislative, executive and judicial powers. The judiciary started gaining independence since the Case of Prohibitions 1607 and was fully independent after the Act of Settlement 1700, which effectively removed the power of the monarch to remove a judge at will. The independence of the legislature started with the Case of Proclamation 1611 and culminated in the Bill of Rights 1689, which curbed future arbitrary behaviour of the monarch and guaranteed Parliament’s power vis a vis the Crown. With these changes made to the UK constitution and as support grew for a democratic government, RP seemed out of place in the hands of the monarch and was slowly transferred into the hands of the government to be used in the name of the Crown.

It is possible for RP to be codified i.e incorporated into an AOP, as can be seen from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRGA). The CRGA codified several RPs, such as the RP to ratify treaties. The codification of RP meant that it would be under Parliamentary control and not the Executive. In the UK today, the UK government makes certain decisions based on the RP if they are not covered under any statutes. However, there have been several cases regarding the use of RP

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The rejection of constitutionalism by Charles I’s sour relationship with the Parliament and Oliver Cromwell’s dissolving of Parliament, along with the acceptance of constitutionalism through the Glorious Revolution during the reign of William and Mary all resulted in a strong English power and newly reinforced parliamentary rights.…

    • 637 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The parliament got King William and Queen mary to sign a bill of rights that made parliament more powerful than the king and queen.…

    • 433 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nullification of Laws (“Royal Veto”) - The British crown also reserved the right to nullify any legislation passed by the colonial assemblies if such laws worked mischief with the mercantilist system.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the…

    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Whether there is a constitution in the United Kingdom has been a controversial topic. The term ‘constitution’ itself is open to different interpretations. Some prescriptive authors argue that a constitution must satisfy a set of specific characteristics – for instance that it must be entrenched and superior to other laws, which is attributed to the people. Others consider that constitutions are codes of norms which aspire to regulate the allocation of powers, functions, and duties among the various agencies and officers of government, and to define the relationship between these and the public. While some believed that a constitution is as simple as ‘no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also.’…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The events and sentiments that ran through 17th century England were perhaps as paradoxical as Charles the 1st’s head being sewn back to his body after his execution. This era saw a polarization of thought, action and outcome in regards to several events, people and institutions. The height of this polarization existed between the monarchy and the parliament, as questions arose in regards to the extent of power the king could wield, and the extent of power Parliament was willing to allow the king to wield. The two ends of the power spectrum were absolute monarchy , which gave the king unlimited powers, or “royal prerogatives” according to the Stuarts due to their “divine right” to exercise it, and the other a constitutional monarchy , where…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Central Government was made up of the Privy Council and the Crown. The Crown was a personal monarchy and therefore their personality could and did affect their reign and choices. The Crown was seen as being chosen by God and ruled by Divine Rule. They held the right to make any final decisions. The Privy Council, while powerful, was simply there to help and advise the Crown on the best way to carry out the Royal Prerogative. The Royal Prerogative, while being the Crowns powers under Common Law, was also their duties to the country. The Royal Prerogative was split into Ordinary Prerogative and Extraordinary Prerogative. The Ordinary Prerogative was for the everyday running and activities of the country. This involved the areas of Defence (military and faith-wise), Foreign Affairs, Law and Order, Power of Appointment, Trade and Commerce, Currency, and Parliament. The Crown was commander-in-chief of the armed forces. They declared war, made peace, signed treaties and trade agreements, and dealt with diplomacy. They were the ‘fount of justice’ dispensing justice through the law courts, making new courts, issuing royal pardons, appointing judges, ministers, advisers, officials and, if there wasn’t one, an heir. If the monarch were male they could determine church doctrine and appoint bishops - if they weren’t they appointed a male to take on this role. The monarch regulated trade by imposing customs and duties. Money could be minted only on authority of the Crown. While Parliament passed the laws the monarch had the power to veto them, and…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Fortunately many argue that the British Judiciary is in essence the most independent of all systems in the world. This is evident due to many reasons. One of which is the constitutional reform act (CRA). The act ensures British Judicial independence as it removes the title of speaker of the House of Lords and also head of the judiciary…

    • 1176 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Glorious Revolution Causes

    • 2107 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The Bill of Rights: It was very important measure taken by the parliament which limited the royal power and also established supremacy of the parliament. The bill was passed in February, 1689. It enumerates the act of James II stating that he abdicated from the power by himself. It reduced the power of the king and made the king bound to take into account the consent of the parliament. The king could not suspend or create laws without the allowance of parliament. He could not raise taxes by royal prerogative and he was forbidden to keep standing army in peace.…

    • 2107 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    ‘Parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional relic. It has been rendered obsolete, in particular, by the supremacy of EU law and the UK’s statutory recognition of human rights. We should no longer talk about this irrelevant doctrine.’…

    • 793 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Role of Govenor General

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Many of these powers reflect an earlier, more active role taken by the monarch. In almost all cases today, however, these powers are carried out on the advice of the government of the day. In some instances, the head of state can exercise powers without, or against this advice.…

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The bloodless change of power in 1688–1689 that ensured representative, constitutional government in England was known as…

    • 364 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Parliamentarians, true to their name, wanted a parliamentarian system whereas the Royalists wanted the monarch to remain in power. The war ended with the execution of Charles I and the replacement of the monarch with a short-lived Commonwealth of England, then the Protectorate Oliver Cromwell. The English parliament was established and set the precedent that the monarch must refer to the parliament before governing. It wasn’t until the Glorious Revolution in 1688 that Parliament became the legal ruling power. England implemented several other legislations pertaining to individual rights, such as the English Bill of Rights, that set certain basic rights and inspired the Americans. The most notable legislation for voting rights were the Great Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884. These acts introduced a wide-range of change to the Parliament and extended voting rights to a larger population. Although limited, England was one of the first to become…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689. It lays down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. the Bill of Rights is still in effect.…

    • 1389 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays