4 ms·

Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. Like here in the US, courts there can set legal precedent, but unlike here, they can't rule

Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. Like here in the US, courts there can set legal precedent, but unlike here, they can't rule a law that has been enacted by the Parliament as being unconstitutional.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. Like here in the US, courts there can set legal precedent, but unlike here, they can't rule a law that has been enacted by the Parliament as being unconstitutional. Yes, Parliamentary sovereignty—that the law is exactly and only what Parliament [0], directly or by delegation to other bodies, says it is—is the central, fundamental, element of the British Constitution (arguably, that is the whole of the British Constitution, insofar as by that you mean something functionally analogous to the US Constitution, that is, a fundamental law to which all other law is subordinate.) There is no Constitution as a distinct document setting out fundamental law with its own amendment process distinct from normal legislation in the UK. You couldn't meaningfully have a law that transcends the normal acts and processes of the legislature without courts being able to set aside regular acts of the legislature as not-law for conflict with it, and you can’t reasonably read the power to resolve all cases and controversies arising under thr Constitution (which explicilty is the preeminent law and limits the power of Congress to make law) and laws of the United States as anything other than including the power to resolve disputes over whether an act of Congress is within the power assigned to Congress in the Constitution. Note that the UK does have judicial review that extends to all acts of delegated power by government body, just not to primary legislation, which is not delegated but a direct act of the sovereign power. In the US, Congress’s legislative power is delegated by the people via the Constitution (popular sovereignty), rather than having Congressional sovereignty as the sole operative Constitutional principal. So, really, judicial review itself is not different between the two systems, only who is the sovereign from which all government power held by other bodies is delegated differs. [0] in present terms; in historical terms, perhaps “the Crown”, embodied in the personal acts of monarchs prior to the establishment of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, and by the acts of the Crown-in-Parliament since, rather than merely “Parliament” would be more accurate.
dataflow 3y ago
> Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy In the US the Constitution is supreme, so it's not like the law is whatever ordinary legislation Congress passes, unlike in the UK. So someone needs to be the referee who declares when statues conflict with the constitution. If SCOTUS is not the one with that power, then who is it? Congress itself?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Note, along those lines, that, in the UK, also, the “Supreme Court” didn’t exist until 2009; prior to that, that function was served formally by the Crown-in-Parliament (the same body as the legislature), and functionally by (since 1876) the Apellate Committee of the House of Lords. So not only do the courts not exercise judicial review over Parliament, until recently the ultimate court was Parliament (nominally, and functionally a committee of the upper House.)
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I'm also aware of that, but again, it doesn't really answer anything regarding the US. The constitution literally has an amendment process written into it. If Congress could just review its own statutes and say "yup that's constitutional" then they'd easily defeat the amendment process.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      I was underlining the structural differences stemming from Parliamentary sovereignty, not offering it as an answer to anything regarding the US.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        Thanks I guess, but in that case I'm confused how the UK was at all relevant to the discussion.
        3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. Like here in the US, courts there can set legal precedent, but unlike here, they can't rule a law that has been enacted by the Parliament as being unconstitutional. Yes, Parliamentary sovereignty—that the law is exactly and only what Parliament [0], directly or by delegation to other bodies, says it is—is the central, fundamental, element of the British Constitution (arguably, that is the whole of the British Constitution, insofar as by that you mean something functionally analogous to the US Constitution, that is, a fundamental law to which all other law is subordinate.) There is no Constitution as a distinct document setting out fundamental law with its own amendment process distinct from normal legislation in the UK. You couldn't meaningfully have a law that transcends the normal acts and processes of the legislature without courts being able to set aside regular acts of the legislature as not-law for conflict with it, and you can’t reasonably read the power to resolve all cases and controversies arising under thr Constitution (which explicilty is the preeminent law and limits the power of Congress to make law) and laws of the United States as anything other than including the power to resolve disputes over whether an act of Congress is within the power assigned to Congress in the Constitution. Note that the UK does have judicial review that extends to all acts of delegated power by government body, just not to primary legislation, which is not delegated but a direct act of the sovereign power. In the US, Congress’s legislative power is delegated by the people via the Constitution (popular sovereignty), rather than having Congressional sovereignty as the sole operative Constitutional principal. So, really, judicial review itself is not different between the two systems, only who is the sovereign from which all government power held by other bodies is delegated differs. [0] in present terms; in historical terms, perhaps “the Crown”, embodied in the personal acts of monarchs prior to the establishment of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, and by the acts of the Crown-in-Parliament since, rather than merely “Parliament” would be more accurate.

dataflow 3y ago

> Well, in the UK they have the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy In the US the Constitution is supreme, so it's not like the law is whatever ordinary legislation Congress passes, unlike in the UK. So someone needs to be the referee who declares when statues conflict with the constitution. If SCOTUS is not the one with that power, then who is it? Congress itself?

dragonwriter 3y ago
Note, along those lines, that, in the UK, also, the “Supreme Court” didn’t exist until 2009; prior to that, that function was served formally by the Crown-in-Parliament (the same body as the legislature), and functionally by (since 1876) the Apellate Committee of the House of Lords. So not only do the courts not exercise judicial review over Parliament, until recently the ultimate court was Parliament (nominally, and functionally a committee of the upper House.)
- dataflow 3y ago
  I'm also aware of that, but again, it doesn't really answer anything regarding the US. The constitution literally has an amendment process written into it. If Congress could just review its own statutes and say "yup that's constitutional" then they'd easily defeat the amendment process.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    I was underlining the structural differences stemming from Parliamentary sovereignty, not offering it as an answer to anything regarding the US.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      Thanks I guess, but in that case I'm confused how the UK was at all relevant to the discussion.
      - 3y ago