constitutional convention
“It has often been said that, as conventional rules derive neither from legislation nor from decisions of the courts, they have an uncertain existence and are not ultimately backed up by any obligations”. (Bradley & Ewing).
Critically discuss this statement.
The one of very characteristic of UK’s unwritten constitution is that the government is not completely restrained by the strict law, but in some areas it reliant on the constitutional conventions, even to dealing with substantial aspects of constitutional behavior. For example, the Queen should give the Royal assent to the Bill which has been properly passed by the Parliament. Unlike the America where have the codified constitution to rule the powers of president and his cabinet, the powers of minister in this country are broadly accounted by the ministerial responsibility convention.
Even though the Great Britain is lack of written constitution, the system is still running with its manner. Sir Jennings provided a great metaphor that convention provides the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law, it makes the legal constitution smoothly workable and keep it in touch with the growth of ideas. It has been illustrated in many ways. Legally, the Queen could appoint whosoever she likes to be a Prime Minister. On the other hand, conventionally, the Queen must appoint as Prime Minister the person who is best able to command a majority in the House of Common. In this scene, although it possibly breaches the principle of separation power, it does work efficiently in the reality.
Regard with the suggestion by Bradley and Ewing, the constitutional convention should not be derived from either legislation passed by parliament or the precedent made by court. In another words, it exists in the uncodified constitution given a reason that must be different from the rule of law. In this essay, I will mainly focus on the conventional identity and its uncertainty regarded with its role on the court, it could be
Critically discuss this statement.
The one of very characteristic of UK’s unwritten constitution is that the government is not completely restrained by the strict law, but in some areas it reliant on the constitutional conventions, even to dealing with substantial aspects of constitutional behavior. For example, the Queen should give the Royal assent to the Bill which has been properly passed by the Parliament. Unlike the America where have the codified constitution to rule the powers of president and his cabinet, the powers of minister in this country are broadly accounted by the ministerial responsibility convention.
Even though the Great Britain is lack of written constitution, the system is still running with its manner. Sir Jennings provided a great metaphor that convention provides the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law, it makes the legal constitution smoothly workable and keep it in touch with the growth of ideas. It has been illustrated in many ways. Legally, the Queen could appoint whosoever she likes to be a Prime Minister. On the other hand, conventionally, the Queen must appoint as Prime Minister the person who is best able to command a majority in the House of Common. In this scene, although it possibly breaches the principle of separation power, it does work efficiently in the reality.
Regard with the suggestion by Bradley and Ewing, the constitutional convention should not be derived from either legislation passed by parliament or the precedent made by court. In another words, it exists in the uncodified constitution given a reason that must be different from the rule of law. In this essay, I will mainly focus on the conventional identity and its uncertainty regarded with its role on the court, it could be