3.1 Development of Parliamentary Sovereignty-2

Parliamentary Sovereignty

L. Fuller (1940): Emphasizes the necessity of an earthly authority to resolve legal disputes, termed the Sovereign. The laws are the rules set down by this authority.
Thomas Hobbes:
- Advocated for a sovereign protector to avoid anarchy, claiming that kings derive authority from God.
- Recognized instability in divine authority used in governance disputes.
- Parliament later established supremacy after installing a new king.

After winning the seventeenth-century conflicts against the king, Parliament claimed sovereignty in law-making.
Joseph de Maistre (1819): Argued that sovereignty in England lies with the unity of the Crown, Lords, and Commons. If they act in concert, they can do everything, while challenges to their authority hold no legal ground.

R (Miller) v Prime Minister; R (Cherry) v Advocate General for Scotland (2019): Established that courts have historically maintained Parliamentary sovereignty against prerogative powers. This case occurred during the Brexit debates, indicating the ongoing relevance of sovereignty in contemporary politics.

The emergence of democracy linked law-making to representative politics, suggesting Parliamentary Sovereignty is the most democratic constitutional principle despite its origin predating democratic governance.

A.V. Dicey (1885):
- Defined Parliamentary Sovereignty as Parliament's unlimited right to make or unmake laws.
- No individual or body can legally override or invalidate Parliament's legislation.
Note: While Parliament has vast powers, it cannot legislate against irreducible natural laws.

(i) Unlimited law-making power: Parliament can create any type of law.
(ii) Uniform legal value: There’s no distinction between constitutional and normal law; all Acts of Parliament hold equal legal standing.

(i) No external challenge to laws: The validity of laws passed by Parliament cannot be questioned by other entities.
(ii) Future binding limitations: Parliament cannot impose restrictions on its successors, known as the ‘dead hand’ principle.

Stockdale v Hansard (1839): Clarified that the House of Commons is a part of Parliament, and that all three legislative sectors (Commons, Lords, Crown) must concur to enact laws.

Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842): Affirmed that courts only recognize an Act’s passage and Royal Assent, without delving into legislative process specifics.
Lee v Bude and Torrington Railway Co (1871): Affirmed judicial duty to respect parliamentary decisions made with royal assent, denying any authority to overrule Parliament's actions.
Dr Bonham’s Case (1610): Lord Coke stated that common law could override acts of Parliament that are contrary to justice or reason, indicating limits to parliamentary power.

H. Calvert (1968): Cautions against using historical examples to assert unlimited parliamentary powers.
A.V. Dicey (1915): Expressed that the permanent interests of Parliament usually align closely with the desires of the electorate, emphasizing the representative nature of the sovereign’s decisions.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State (2017): Clarified that the 2016 referendum's political implications do not confer legal powers; substantive changes require parliamentary legislation.