British Constitution

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

The judicial branch interprets the laws.

The highest judicial body is the Supreme Court of Judicature, which consists of two divisions: the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal.

It’s often said that English Law is superior to the law of most other countries. Indeed, the English judicial system contains many rules to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the police and the government.

Questions:

1).What are the main branches (bodies) of the British State System?

2).Why is it said that the Queen reigns but does not rule?

3).What is the difference between two Houses?

4).What is the shape of the debating chambers in Parliament? Why is it important?

Questions:

5).What do the terms “front-bencher"," back-bencher”,”cross-bencher” mean?

6).What does a wool sack mean?

7). What does the “strangers’ gallery” mean?

8). Describe the process of passing a bill?

Lecture 5.

Constitution of Great Britain.

The US State System.

Senate.

The House of Representatives.

The US Constitution.

In this important respect Britain differs from oth­er countries because it has no written constitution.

Constitution is usually adopted at a turning point in the history of a country. In Britain for more than 300 years there have been no upheavals, no turning points since the time of Glorious Revolution when the Bill of Rights was recognized and signed by Mary and William (1688—1689). That document deprived monarchy of its absolute power and limited it great­ly. No constitution was written down either then or since but the Bill of Rights may be regarded as the beginning of the British Constitution which estab­lished Constitutional Monarchy in Britain.

To bring the changes of life in agreement with the time a number of regulations were adopted known as Acts of Parliament. More than 6000 acts of Parlia­ment are stored in Victoria Tower of Westminster. Some of them are of Constitutional significance and form the Westminster Statute.

When speaking of British Constitution usually the following three main sources are mentioned: Statute of Westminster¹, Common Law and Conventions.

Statute of Westminster makes the Bible of the British Constitution, it comprises the most important Acts of Parliament, which regulate political system of the country and rights and duties of British citi­zens. They are:

1. Magna Charta (Carta) — the Great Charter of English liberties, forced from King John «Lackland* by English barons. It was signed by him on June 15, 1215. Lords' Council set by the Charta was the first limitation of monarch's absolute power and the beginning of future Parliament.

2. Petition of Right — was signed by Charles I in 1628. It substantially limited monarchs absolute power and extended the rights of Parliament and courts and protected the property of the bourgeoisie. It was signed by King Charles but ignored, which caused the English Revolution headed by Cromwell.

3. Habeas Corpus Act¹, 1679 — proclaimed sovereignty of person and his property, restrain or extension of the person's liberty in courts.

4. The Bill of Rights — the statute of 1689 signed by William III and Mary II. With minor changes it confirmed the petition of Right and proclaimed the foundation of Constitutional Monarchy.

5. Statute of Westminster — the Act of Parliament of 1931 regulating the relations between the UK and its dominions. It confirmed full sovereignty of the former British dominions.

The second source of the British Constitution is Common Law. In most countries there exist Civil

Code and Criminal Code. In Britain there is the so called Common Law based on precedent, modified by * constant process of interpretation. Since the times of Queen Elizabeth I every case in court has been re­corded. When a judge comes to a legal decision he is to agree it with similar or analogous precedents, i.e, to find a precedent, be guided by it, correlate his decision upon the precedent. Common Law is guided by the motto «What is not proved directly forbidden is allowed*.

Convention — the third source of the British Constitution — are unwritten laws. Though not codified or written they have a binding force as rules of the Constitution. If anyone violates those un­written rules — he may lose his post, find himself in isolation, his career may be ruined. Conventions regulate the relations on different levels of the so­ciety from top to bottom: between Monarchy and Parliament, Monarchy and Government, between Parliament and Government, Government and Civil Service and so on. For example: the divine right of the Queen to choose her Prime Minister is a con­vention as well as the Queen's all other preroga­tives; a member of Government (Cabinet) cannot crit­icise his Government, he is either to agree or to resign — that is collective responsibility conven­tion. Many traditional ceremonies are conventions too (Queen's Opening of Parliament, her belonging to the House of Lords, inability to enter the House of Commons, Commons appearance in the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament, the du­ties of the Speaker, etc.)

The absence of the written constitution is regarded by many people as an advantage. They think that be­cause the constitution is not contained in any written document it can be easily altered by the passing of an Act of Parliament or by general agreement to vary, amend, abolish or create a convention. So they think it can more readily be adapted to changing political conditions and ideas, its flexibility saves serious dis­turbance to existing organs and forms of government.

There is, on the other hand, a strong counter-argu­ment and criticism of the existing political system. The opponents think that Britain's unwritten Consti­tution is no longer a sufficient safeguard of demo­cratic and individual rights, as there is no constitu­tional protection either for the nation as a whole or for individuals, as neither the Queen nor the Lords can effectively oppose a Government which commands the majority in the Commons. An elected government untrammeled (unlimited) by constitutional limits is a menace to people's liberties whether it be a dictator­ship of Right or Left, of a majority or a minority.

In 1988 a group of distinguished politicians, law­yers, academics, writers and journalists began to cam­paign under the title «Charter 88» (harking back to the charter of 1688) for wide-ranging reforms. They called for a Bill of Rights, protecting individual lib­erties, and for a written constitution which would define and limit the powers of Parliament, because a

Bill of Rights without a written constitution limiting Parliament's sovereignty might be worthless. These demands are not groundless. It is undeniable that be­tween the 80s and 90s the British government was found guilty of infringing the European Convention of Human Rights more than any other member of the European Community law.

These points are seen quite the other way by the opponents. They regard the present system as virtue rather than a defect as it ensures strong government. So the debate should be about how to find the balance between strong government and strong democracy. The calls for constitutional reforms are unlikely to disappear; they may become even more insistent. The problem is that no government once elected will wish to restrict its powers. So the British people come to the conclusion that only a constitutional crisis will persuade them whether or not a written constitution is necessary.

Дата добавления: 2015-05-26