Defining Characteristics Of The New Zealand Constitution

4. Weakening democracies in New Zealand is coming from voters no longer finding voting to be important anymore. The biggest group

The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten

One strength of the UK constitution is the flexibility that it has, for the reason that the constitution is uncodified or unwritten and is therefore not entrenched in law. Due to the fact that the UK’s constitution is uncodified or unwritten, it has an opportunity to modernise itself to the ever changing society or any other new circumstances that may arise. An example of the flexibility of the UK’s

A governmental system is required in each aspect of our lives to maintain justice and regulate order through a reasonable and unbiased approach. Rules and regulations need to be implemented within society to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of individuals are guaranteed, both equally and justifiably. This paper will discuss the importance and relevance of constitutions to our everyday lives, with a particular focus on the Canadian Constitution and how it essentially allows us to live in a democratic and free society. According to Christopher E. Taucer, constitutions “empower the government by setting out bodies with authority and their powers and limits on that authority,” (2001, 1) and hence, lay out the collective values within a

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

For many years it has been argued that parliamentary sovereignty has, and still is, being eroded. As said by AV Dicey, the word ‘sovereignty’ is used to describe the idea of “the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit”. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, able to create and remove any law. This power over-rules courts and all other jurisdiction. It also cannot be entrenched; this is where all laws passed by the party in government can be changed by future parliaments. In recent years sovereignty of parliament has been a

An unlimited amendment power collapses the distinction between constitutional-making and constitutional-amending. Consequently, it can also extinguish the people’s primary constituent power. If amendment powers were unlimited, what would be kept for the people?9 But amendment powers are not unlimited, and this unamendability limits only governmental organs – those authorities delegated with the competence to amend the constitution – rather than the people themselves.10 The people retain the primary constituent power; and through its exercise they may amend and establish the political order and its fundamental principles.11 Primary constituent power is manifested through a democratic appearance of popular sovereignty in extraordinary constitutional

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

The British constitution is flexible in nature, which has allowed for the development of this country over centuries without the need for a fully codified constitution. I

On October 26th Barnaby Joyce, Australia’s prime minister, lost his seat for “allegedly” being a New Zealander. Later it was confirmed that he was. Joyce states that he “had no reason to believe he was a citizen of any other country”. This took place in Sydney, Australia. The problem with this situation is that “in section 44 of the country’s constitution” it says that you cannot be a citizen of any other country but Australia in order to be part of the country’s government. This affects many people including the citizens of Australia and their constitution. The constitution could be changed in order for this controversy to be ended. Also because this is 2017 and in Australia “a quarter of Australia's population was born overseas”. If the constitution

are two countries that are very similar but not quite the same. The U.S. is a democracy, but New Zealand is a Parliament. These are two very similar types of government but a Parliament takes some aspects from a monarchy and combine them with some from a democracy. New Zealand does not have a president, they have a prime minister. In the U.S. citizens vote for a president. But in New Zealand they vote for the members of the Parliament, and the legislative branch of the Parliament assigns a prime minister. New Zealand also does not have states. They did used to have provinces, but they scraped in the provincial system in the late

Britain, to begin with, has no written constitution due to the country’s own constitutional structure’s stability. It remains uncodified, yet it’s legal sources stem from Acts of parliament, European Union law, equity and common law,. Therefore the varying powers of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law will be considered against these sources.

The Division and Separation of power are essential to keep our societies rulers to have a restriction on their powers. The importance of each on the Australian domestic law especially in relation to the rule of law, and protecting individual rights, and the legal system.

(New Zealand Government, 2015, para. 1). Prime Minister John Key, the main advocate for change, officially launched such discussion last year in a public address he gave at Victoria’s University in Wellington. One of the main points presented in Key’s (2014) speech were his views on how he believes Moreover Key (2014) also argued (para. 88). So far the Prime Ministers proposal failed to inspire the public. On the contrary, it has produced a substantial amount of controversy. The main arguments seem to revolt around the issues of cost, process, national symbol, history and change. This paper will look more closely into each of these aforementioned public differences and close with my own view concerning this debate.