Public law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Public law - Essay Example According to Dicey, â€Å"The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined [i.e., as the ‘King in Parliament’] has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament† (as cited in Eleftheriadis, 2009). Hence, one can say that parliament alone has the power to make laws. It also has the immunity in that none can change the laws made by it. In Jackson v Attorney-General [2005] UK HL 56, Lord Steyns approved an argument put forward in 1935. He said that the monarch and the two Houses (Lords and Commons) must consent to legislate. Parliament can spread legislative powers in various ways. This was redefining parliament for a specific purpose and could not be ignored (Carroll, 2013. P. 105). In Pickin v British Railways Board [1974 ] AC 765, it was noted that though parliament had not followed procedure, it could not be compelled to investigate the allegation. (ibid, p. 102). 1. The EU Referendum Bill and Parliamentary Sovereignty of UK â€Å"The constitutional referendum is often conceptualised as the ultimate institutional expression of popular sovereignty’’  (Daly, 2013). ... If no party receives an absolute majority, the future of the referendum could be in jeopardy. Only if the orders are passed through parliamentary assent can the referendum be conducted at the stipulated time. In the past, many amendments were proposed to EU Treaty bills. This resulted in the demand for referendum for such amendments. The Conservatives were of the opinion that the EU was intruding into various aspects of life. Hence, they supported a ‘referendum lock’ which would validate future EU association by the citizens (European Union Referendum Bill, 2013). The EU provided its members an ‘opt-out option’. However, this was cast in an all or nothing terms. This was to discourage UK and such members who took the matter lightly. The Treaty demands that opt-out decision should be taken at least six months prior to the end of the transition period allowed. The Tory Eurosceptics were in favour of no opting back. They were of the opinion that co-operation wi th other European countries could be possible through international arrangements on a case-by-case basis (Craig, 2013, p. 172). Sovereignty is closely related to state power. The state maintains sovereignty in that it has the power and authority to enact laws by which it can serve the national interest. Member states desired international co-operation in foreign & security policy, justice & home affairs. In such sensitive matters, they prefer inter-governmentalism, hence retaining control in their own hands. Nevertheless, EU needs to involve itself since crime and terrorism have a cross-border nature. Hence, state autonomy will have to be sacrificed in such matters as the price for resolving serious issues of global concern. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a case in point. EAW

Compromise of 1850 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Compromise of 1850 - Essay Example While that statement had many different interpretations placed upon it, the Compromise of 1850, in part, would seek to address the issue of slavery. As for its definition, "The Compromise of 1850 was a series of five bills that were intended to stave off sectional strife. Its goal was to deal with the spread of slavery to territories in order to keep northern and southern interests in balance," (Kelly, p.1). For the young nation, the hope would be to equalize the relations between both the northern region, as well as the south and enable both sides to come to the same respective unity. The discussion over slavery, would remain one of the more potentially contentious portions of the proposed plan itself. In this case, "Of all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slave owners.