Royal Prerogative Control

The Supremacy of the monarchy is the monarchical state of being superior more than all others in power which refers to the Bristish Law’s called Magna Carta, common law and precedent. The Magna Carta is a charter that King John of England was forced to seal and sign the Magna Carta, otherwise he would be considered shameful and unjust. Magna Carta is still one of the most influential documents that is a part of our law which exhibits the idea of liberation of citizens. King Henry II developed a system of travelling judges (circuit judges) who would visit villages, resolve conflicts, heard cases and created new laws which is now considered common law. According to the textbook, common law has three meanings. It refers to the law that comes from Britain, it means a law that is common is all… law that applies to all subjects in the land and it also means law that is based on the best decision of judges. Common law is the law that is the same for every individual and should be obeyed by everyone equally and ethically. Common law is also seen as a precedent because the past decisions of the judges were recorded and were used for alike cases or conflicts. In short, the Supremacy of The Monarchy developed from the Magna Carta, common law, court system and precedent that helped our Canadian law develop to make it

It can be argued that Prime ministers are almost omnipotent in the political system in the UK, this is due to the shear variety of powers in-which the prime minister holds, and the prerogatives that are taken advantage by the prime minister. However, checks on powers in the UK means that the prime minister is not as power as they appear, moreover, they are not separable from the UK political system, henceforth, they are controlled and limited within the system they are part of, thus, more often than not, prime ministers are less powerful then sometimes claimed.

Evaluating the Argument that Powers and Privileges of Parliament Increased Steadily at the Expense of Royal Power

In the constitutional monarchy, the resident Governor-General 99% of the time carries out ceremonial tasks, however in the unlikely case that the Prime Minister is acting against the constitution or if he/she can’t guarantee safe passage of supply or if he/she lose confidence of the House of Reps. This along with other reserved powers of the Governor-General allow for the country to function smoothly. As may be alluded to by the left-wing progressives, the reserved powers of the Governor-General have only been used once in history to avoid the country going into economic meltdown since the Prime Minister couldn’t secure supply for the budget. From the conservative view, since the Queen’s representative is a resident of Australia they will only make decisions first and foremost with the best interest of the nation at heart. Another issue in a republican system which the constitutional monarchy would solve is the likelihood of a dictatorship. Polls suggest that if we were to become a republic, they want to vote in a president. However, the problem with this model is that the executive president will hold the ability to enforce views and powers which may be seen as presidential oversight. Nonetheless, he may be able to do that. This scenario would be disastrous if a

Almost all governments during the 16th and 17th centuries were absolute monarchies. These monarchs caused a lot of controversy because the people they were residing over believed that it was unfair for them to not have a say in the government. This caused many people to look at at absolute monarchs as tyrannical because they did not like the way that they chose to rule. This period of absolutism caused people to look at monarchs as tyrannical because the people believed that they saw themselves as equal to God, did not listen to their people, and because they thought only they knew how to lead.

The initial 12 actions include King George III's foundation of an oppressive power set up of agent government. The establishment of delegate government is the force of the general population to make laws for people in general great. Ruler George III meddled with that procedure by dismissing enactment proposed by the states, dissolving provincial groups of representation, supplanting pioneer governments with his selected priests, and meddling with the naturalization of natives in new districts. Lord George III developed his overbearing control by meddling with the goal legal procedures and the social equality of the settlers. Lord George III kept the foundation of legal forces in the states and made judges reliant on him for their employments

Catherine the Great is a absolute monarchy the reason why Catherine the Great is a absolute monarchy is because she intended on modernizing her country. She had ruled as the Empress of Russia more than thirty years after Peter III (husband) had been murdered but however Peter the Great had been using force. But Catherine decided to establish reforms that would improve the Russians society that wouldn't require her to use force on her people. She had improved education for the middle class and nobles but she had also modern agriculture. But while under her leadership the Russians had gained military success and territory. Russian was brought to the modern age but not only that it was also retaining an absolute monarchy by the time she had died in 1796.

Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other organisations such as Parliament. For the people of England in the 1630s, it was a very real threat. After the dissolving of Parliament in 1629, Charles I embarked on his Personal Rule. Without analysing whose fault the breakdown in relations was, it was probably the only thing Charles could do in the circumstances. Certainly, no dialogue with Parliament was possible.

The Legislature power is a power that makes law for regulation of peoples and private organisations conduct, also structure and power of public authorities which is ran by the Parliament. This includes bodies such as House of Lords, House of Commons and the Queen. The Executive power is the administrative branch of government that implements the law, which are made by legislators. Bodies that regulate this are the Queen, Prime Minister, other Ministers, Civil service, police and armed forces. Introduction of the legislation, controlling security and public services, supporting prosperity and conducting the external relation of the state are the roles of the executive power. The Judiciary is the power that

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 .

Parliament can however override and replace the prerogative by statute e.g. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Courts are capable of judicial review of these powers as was held unanimously in the GCHQ case. Only prerogative acts, which don’t involve high policy best determined by the executives will be reviewed.

To determine if the Prime Minister has too much power there are a few things that need to be considered. The first is the responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the power these responsibly give the position. Looking at how much power the Prime Minister has in relation to the amount of responsibilities placed on that government role will give insights into the necessities of that power. Next, reviewing the history of powers the Prime Minister has over the years will show a timeline of a gradual increase in power. Finally, to determine if the Prime Minister has too much power recent events must be discussed in which the Prime Minister has abused their powers. To fully understand how the amount of power the Prime Minister has can impact the government, there will be a focus on one specific example of who calls elections throughout. Overall, in examining the responsibilities and powers of the Prime Minister in relation to the

Who held power in the 1700s you might ask. Well it’s complicated. You see the supremest thing on earth is the Estate of monarchy. The Estate of monarchy is basically a form of government where the supreme power is in the hands of one person and is passed down to another . Anyways kings were God’s substitutes on earth and sit on God’s throne. But even God called them gods. I find this mindblowing because in movies you tipically see gods and kings ahving bad relationships. Theres usually deaths, blood, violence and total kayos between the two but here the two are seen as equal. The three principals that describe the state of monarchy are one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In Scriptures

The monarch is a figure head and does no decision making. The voters of a parliamentary system elect parliament who then elect the prime minister and the cabinet. The prime minister is normally the leader of the most popular party in parliament. The PM even being the head of government is not as powerful as the head of government in a presidential system. The parliament of the system withholds the most power. They make or break any law. Compared to the separation of powers as in a presidential system there is only a separation of functions. Each part of government has its own function to perform, but there is no system of checks and balances. An example of the overlapping of powers is the need of a vote of confidence. A vote of confidence is proposed by a party and needs backing from the other part of government. With no system of sorts there is more likely of upheaval and change of rule. There is not as much stability in a parliamentary system as there is in a presidential. Lastly there is no judicial rule as there is in a presidential system. A parliamentary system has had success in the past but still is seen as not as successful as a presidential system.

The power of the crown and the authority of the government is limited by the Declaration of Man and the Citizen. One situation where the government is limited is where “Men are born free and remain equal in rights.” (1789, Art, 1, DRMC.) The government must give all men equal rights. The rights of man include “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” (1789, Art, 2, DRMC.) Both the power of the crown and the authority of the government are limited by (1789, Art, 3, DRMC.) “no individual can exercise authority which does not emanate from it expressly.” If authority does not originate directly from the crown or a member of government, they may not exercise said authority. “The law has the right to prohibit only those actions harmful to society.” (1789, Art, 5, DRMC.) Neither the power of the crown nor government can prohibit an individual from doing something that is not harmful to society or force an individual to do “what it does not order” by obstructing or changing the law. “The right to concur personally or through their representative in its formation… must be the same for everyone.” Authority must give the same rights to everyone to “concur personally or through their representative.” (1789, Art, 6, DRMC.) In Article 8, the government or power of crown may only punish a person if “strictly and plainly necessary.” (1789, Art, 8, DRMC.) If unneccessary, a person may not be penalized by government or the power of the crown. Individuals