DOCSLIB.ORG

Clements: Q&A Public Law Chapter 4: the Royal Prerogative Question 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clements: Q&A Public Law Chapter 4: the Royal Prerogative Question 1 Clements: Q&A Public Law Chapter 4: The Royal Prerogative Question 1: “The principal convention of the UK constitution is that the Queen shall exercise her formal legal powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of her ministers, save in a few exceptional situations.” De Smith and Brazier Constitutional and Administrative Law. Discuss. You will have been taught that the Queen retains a good number of her legal, prerogative powers, but that by convention, the Prime Minister of the day and her government use those powers and act in the Queen’s name. Generally, the Queen, only has “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn”. The Queen is entitled to state, in her weekly private meetings with the PM, that she does not like what the PM is proposing to do, but if the PM insists, the Queen will comply. The question is asking you to consider the “few exceptional situations” when the Queen might actually say No. For example, it is thought that the monarch does often express very strong views about their preference and that the PM will sometimes moderate their position. Constitutional writers claim, that in certain circumstances, the Queen would be entitled to refuse a request for the use of her prerogative powers. A study of constitutional history reveals a number of examples. The Queen has not refused a request for a dissolution of Parliament since 1708, but could she, if she was convinced that it was in the national interest? A Prime Minister is the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons and the Queen accepts that, but what if there was no one who could command a majority? Could the Queen become involved in the choice of a PM, as appears to have happened in 1931, when Labour’s Ramsay MacDonald became the leader of a largely Conservative government. The PM can start a war or conclude a treaty using the royal prerogative. Nowadays, it is expected that the PM would gain the approval of the Commons at least, before © Richard Clements, 2016. Clements: Q&A Public Law proceeding, as with the recent bombing of Syria, but there is no legal requirement to do so. If the PM disregarded the wishes of the Commons and, by implication the people, should the Queen intervene? It is thought that the Queen retains the power to dismiss a PM who is acting unconstitutionally, as happened in Australia, with Gough Whitlam in 1975. What would it take for the Queen to do this in the UK? That is what this question is asking. © Richard Clements, 2016. Clements: Q&A Public Law Question 2: Assess the current significance of the Monarch in the UK constitution. There is quite a lot of law that surrounds the role of the monarch in the UK constitution. The Act of Settlement 1700, for instance, determines who may become King or Queen. Under that Act the first born male child succeeds in preference to female children. This was amended in modern times by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which ensures that the person that succeeds is the eldest child, irrespective of whether they are male or female. The 2013 Act also reduces discrimination against Roman Catholics, in that the heir to the throne is no longer disqualified if they marry a person of that religion. The King or Queen is still not permitted to be a Roman Catholic however. The Queen is Head of State of the UK and a number of other countries, and she is she is also head of the Commonwealth. She performs a large number of ceremonial and official functions. Each day she has to work through and approve a large number of government documents. Legally the Queen retains a large number of powers to actually govern the country, known as the royal prerogative. These are mentioned in question 1 and also in Chapter 4. They could be used again in this essay. In reality the Prime Minister, or other government minister, acts in her name, but the Queen has to be consulted about the use of her powers. Bagehot wrote that the Queen has “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn”. This gives the Queen the opportunity to give helpful advice. She has a lot of experience of governmental and world affairs, as she has now, in Teresa May, her thirteenth Prime Minister. The “warn” part means that the Queen might be able to act as a restraining influence upon a rash PM, so material from the answer to question 1 could again be recycled in this answer. © Richard Clements, 2016. Clements: Q&A Public Law Question 3: Does the institution of Monarchy serve any useful purpose today? It is easy in Constitutional law to ask basically the same question, but in a slightly different way. Your answer could be very similar to that of question 2, but here, in addition to describing what the monarchy actually does, you are being asked to argue a point of view, is the monarchy useful or not? Some would argue that the monarchy is too expensive. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 agree the financing for each king or Queen’s reign, rather than the older system of annual renewal. The Queen receives the Civil List, for salaries and the expense of running the royal household, but with extra allowances for travel and maintenance of the royal palaces. The money is supplied by Parliament and the Crown must provide a proper explanation of how it is spent. Most would agree that the Queen carries out some valuable and so if you are arguing that the Monarchy is unnecessary, your answer would need to explain who else would carry out these tasks. If it was the PM would that give her too much power? If we decided on a President, how would that person be elected or chosen and what powers would they have? © Richard Clements, 2016. Clements: Q&A Public Law Question 4: Consider the extent to which it is possible to judicially review the royal prerogative? The Queen retains many legal powers, known as the royal prerogative, which are in fact exercised by the government. But, because, the Queen has Crown immunity and cannot be sued (Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC [1990] 1 All ER 1), it was thought for a long time that the use of a prerogative could not be challenged under the process of judicial review. The court would confine itself to looking at legal and historical sources to decide whether the prerogative power still existed and whether it gave the government the power to do what was claimed. There are several well known cases where this has occurred: BBC v. Johns [1965] Ch. 32, Attorney-General v. De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920] AC 508, Burmah Oil v. Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 and even the relatively recent R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1987] 2 WLR 998. It is clear that if the prerogative power has been superseded by an Act of Parliament then the Crown should use the Act, which is likely to provide greater protection for the citizen: R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513. The House of Lords finally conceded that judicial review of the royal prerogative was possible in R. v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ex parte The Council of Civil Service Unions [1985] AC 374, but this was only for minor or delegated uses of the prerogative. The use of the high prerogative of state such as the making of treaties, defence and official appointments could still not be challenged in the courts. Since that date, there have been a few successful challenges to prerogative power in R. v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte Everett [1989] AC 1014, where a UK citizen was refused a passport and in R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Bentley [1993] 4 All ER 442, where a royal pardon had been refused. © Richard Clements, 2016. Clements: Q&A Public Law It could be argued that the courts are slowly becoming braver in challenging high- handed government actions. In R (Bancoult) v Foreign Secretary (No 2) [2009] 1 AC 453 the House of Lords overturned an Order in Council and, in the same proceedings, the Supreme Court have suggested that the UK government should think again about allowing the Chagos islanders to return to their homeland: [2016] UKSC 35. © Richard Clements, 2016. Clements: Q&A Public Law Question 4: Should the royal prerogative be reformed? Discuss. It is often argued that the royal prerogative gives the government of the day too much power. As we can see in answer 4 the courts have only asserted limited powers to control the prerogative. The government is accountable to Parliament for its use of the prerogative. The government does not usually need Parliament’s permission to act under the prerogative and Parliament is often reduced to criticising after the event. There are many areas of the prerogative, on which governments decline to answer parliamentary questions. These would include any conversations with the Queen, military matters, appointments and the grant of honours, national security, relations with other states, decisions to prosecute and other matters. This has been criticised by the Commons Public Administration Select Committee in their 2004 report, “Taming the Prerogative” 2003-4 HC 422. There has been progress since then: it would now be unthinkable after the Iraq War, for a Prime Minister to launch military action without parliamentary approval.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Constitutional Role of the Privy Council and the Prerogative 3
    Foreword The Privy Council is shrouded in mystery. As Patrick O’Connor points out, even its statutory definition is circular: the Privy Council is defined by the Interpretation Act 1978 as the members of ‘Her Majesty’s Honourable Privy Council’. Many people may have heard of its judicial committee, but its other roles emerge from the constitutional fog only occasionally – at their most controversial, to dispossess the Chagos Islanders of their home, more routinely to grant a charter to a university. Tracing its origin back to the twelfth or thirteen century, its continued existence, if considered at all, is regarded as vaguely charming and largely formal. But, as the vehicle that dispossessed those living on or near Diego Garcia, the Privy Council can still display the power that once it had more widely as an instrument of feudal rule. Many of its Orders in Council bypass Parliament but have the same force as democratically passed legislation. They are passed, unlike such legislation, without any express statement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. What is more, Orders in Council are not even published simultaneously with their passage. Two important orders relating to the treatment of the Chagos Islanders were made public only five days after they were passed. Patrick, originally inspired by his discovery of the essay that the great nineteenth century jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote for his All Souls Fellowship, provides a fascinating account of the history and continuing role of the Privy Council. He concludes by arguing that its role, and indeed continued existence, should be subject to fundamental review.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Financial Privilege
    Report Financial Privilege The Undoubted and Sole Right of the Commons? Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA Richard Reid PhD FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE THE UNDOUBTED AND SOLE RIGHT OF THE COMMONS? By Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA and Richard Reid PhD Acknowlegements The authors thank The Constitution Society for commissioning and publishing this paper. First published in Great Britain in 2016 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9954703-0-9 © Malcolm Jack and Richard Reid 2016. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE 3 Contents Acknowlegements 2 About the Authors 4 Summary 5 PART 1 Conventions in Respect of Financial Privilege 6 PART 2 Parliament Acts 19 PART 3 Handling of Bills with Financial Provisions 30 PART 4 Secondary Legislation 41 PART 5 The Strathclyde Review 51 Appendix 1 Parliament Act 1911 62 Appendix 2 Parliament Act 1949 67 4 FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE About the Authors Sir Malcolm Jack was Clerk of the House of Commons from 2006–2011. He is editor of the current, twenty-fourth edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 2011. He lectures and writes on constitutional and historical subjects, having published widely on the history of ideas as well as on aspects of British, European and South African history.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of the Republic of TRINIDAD and TOBAGO ACT
    LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt CONSTITuTION OF The RePuBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ACT ChAPTeR 1:01 Act 4 of 1976 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–2 .. 3–16 .. 1/2009 17–28 .. 29–54 .. 1/2009 55–58 .. 59–64 .. 1/2009 65–66 .. 67–84 .. 1/2009 85–86 .. 87–92 .. 1/2009 93–96 .. 97–120 .. 1/2009 121–132 .. 133–190 .. 1/2009 191–204 .. L.R.O. UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2009 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Constitution of the Republic 2 Chap. 1:01 of Trinidad and Tobago Index of Subsidiary Legislation Page Existing Laws Amendment Order (GN 8/1962) … … … … 17 Existing Laws Amendment Order (GN 97/1963) … … … 19 Existing Laws Modification Order (GN 136/1976) … … … 22 Letters Patent Establishing the Distinguished Society of Trinidad and Tobago (110/1983) …… … … … … … 23 Electoral College Regulations (GN 187/1976) … … … … 29 Public Service Commission (Delegation of Powers) Order (GN 158/1966) … 41 Teaching Service Commission (Delegation of Powers) Order (GN 88/1969)… 55 Public Service Commission Regulations (GN 132/1966)… … … 57 Police Service Commission Regulations (GN 131/1966)… … … 131 Appointment of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Qualification and Selection Criteria) Order (LN 165/2007) … 172 Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Selection Process) Order (LN 166/2007) … … … … … … 174 Public Service Appeal Board Regulations (GN 74/1978) … … … 177 Police Service Commission (Appeal) Regulations … … … 191 Note on Schedule The Constitution which was originally enacted as the Schedule to this Act has been published independently (at the beginning of this Edition and immediately before this Chapter).
    [Show full text]
  • What the Crown May Do
    WHAT THE CROWN MAY DO 1. It is now established, at least at the level of the Court of Appeal (so that Court has recently stated)1, that, absent some prohibition, a Government minister may do anything which any individual may do. The purpose of this paper is to explain why this rule is misconceived and why it, and the conception of the “prerogative” which it necessarily assumes, should be rejected as a matter of constitutional law. 2. The suggested rule raises two substantive issues of constitutional law: (i) who ought to decide in what new activities the executive may engage, in what circumstances and under what conditions; and (ii) what is the scope for abuse that such a rule may create and should it be left without legal control. 3. As Sir William Wade once pointed out (in a passage subsequently approved by the Appellate Committee2), “The powers of public authorities are...essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion.” If a minister may do anything that an individual may do, he may pursue any purpose which an individual may do when engaged in such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021
    jftLVªh lañ Mhñ ,yñ—(,u)04@0007@2003—21 REGISTERED NO. DL—(N)04/0007/2003—21 सी.जी.-डी.एल.-अ.-13082021-228989xxxGIDHxxx CG-DL-E-13082021-228989xxxGIDExxx vlk/kkj.k EXTRAORDINARY Hkkx II — [k.M 1 PART II — Section 1 izkf/kdkj ls izdkf'kr PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY lañ 45] ubZ fnYyh] 'kqØokj] vxLr 13] [email protected] 22] 1943 ¼'kd½ No. 45] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 2021/SRAVANA 22, 1943 (SAKA) bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g vyx ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk ldsA Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation. MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 13th August, 2021/ Sravana 22, 1943 (Saka) The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 13th August, 2021, and is hereby published for general information:— THE TRIBUNALS REFORMS ACT, 2021 NO. 33 OF 2021 [13th August, 2021.] An Act further to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Customs Act, 1962, the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 and certain other Acts. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy-second Year of the Republic of India as follows: — CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. (1) This Act may be called the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Short title and commencement. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th April, 2021. 2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II— Definitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ghana's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments Through 1996
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:30 constituteproject.org Ghana's Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 1996 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:30 Table of contents Preamble . 14 CHAPTER 1: THE CONSTITUTION . 14 1. SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION . 14 2. ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION . 14 3. DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION . 15 CHAPTER 2: TERRITORIES OF GHANA . 16 4. TERRITORIES OF GHANA . 16 5. CREATION, ALTERATION OR MERGER OF REGIONS . 16 CHAPTER 3: CITIZENSHIP . 17 6. CITIZENSHIP OF GHANA . 17 7. PERSONS ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED AS CITIZENS . 17 8. DUAL CITIZENSHIP . 18 9. CITIZENSHIP LAWS BY PARLIAMENT . 18 10. INTERPRETATION . 19 CHAPTER 4: THE LAWS OF GHANA . 19 11. THE LAWS OF GHANA . 19 CHAPTER 5: FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS . 20 Part I: General . 20 12. PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS . 20 13. PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO LIFE . 20 14. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY . 21 15. RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY . 22 16. PROTECTION FROM SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR . 22 17. EQUALITY AND FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION . 23 18. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY OF HOME AND OTHER PROPERTY . 23 19. FAIR TRIAL . 23 20. PROTECTION FROM DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY . 26 21. GENERAL FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS . 27 22. PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SPOUSES . 29 23. ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE . 29 24. ECONOMIC RIGHTS . 29 25. EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS . 29 26. CULTURAL RIGHTS AND PRACTICES . 30 27. WOMEN'S RIGHTS . 30 28. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS . 30 29. RIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS .
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: the Effect of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 345-405
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 5 Volume 14, Number 2 (October 1976) Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: The ffecE t of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege Katherine Swinton Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Article Citation Information Swinton, Katherine. "Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: The Effect of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 345-405. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol14/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT: THE EFFECT OF ENROLMENT AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE By KATHERINE SWINTON* A. INTRODUCTION Parliamentary sovereignty has proved a topic of fascination to scholars of constitutional law for many years, as the volume of literature on the subject well demonstrates. Admittedly, the interest has been greater in Commonwealth countries other than Canada. In this country, students of constitutional law have focussed their attention on the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, since federalism has presented problems requiring immediate solution. Yet even here, the question of parliamentary sovereignty has been given consideration, and it is increasingly attracting discussion as interest increases in the patriation of the constitution and statutory protection for individual and minority rights. Within a study of parliamentary sovereignty, reference is normally made to the enrolled bill principle or rule. This precept, regarded by some as an aspect of sovereignty and by others simply as a rule of evidence, states that the parliamentary roll is conclusive - an Act passed by Parliament and en- rolled must be accepted as valid on its face and cannot be challenged in the courts on grounds of procedural irregularity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Prerogative and Equality Rights the Royal
    THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND EQUALITY RIGHTS 625 THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND EQUALITY RIGHTS: CAN MEDIEVAL CLASSISM COEXIST WITH SECTION 15 OF THE CHARTER? GERALD CHI PE UR• The author considers whether the prerogative L' auteur se demande si la prerogative de priorite priority of the Crown in the collection of debts of de la Cour01me dans le recouvrement des crea11ces equal degree is inconsistem with the guaramee of de degre ega/ respecte la garantie d' egalite que equality found in section I 5 of the Canadian Charter colltiefll /' art. 15 de la Charle des droits et libertes. of Rights an.d Freedoms "Charter." He concludes Sa conclusion est negatfre et ii estime qu',me telle that the Crown prerogative of priority is 1101 prerogatfre ne constitue pas une limite raismmable consistent with section I 5 and that such prerogative dons ,me societe fibre et democratique, atLrtermes de is not a reasonable limit in a free and democratic /' art. I de la Charte. society under section 1 of the Charter. L' a111eur etudie d' abord /es origines de la The author first investigates the origins of the prerogative de la Courom1e,puis la prerogative de la Crown prerogative in general and then the priorite plus particulierement. II I' examine ensuite a prerogative of priority in particular. The author then la lumiere de la Chane. L' auteur dec:/areque /' objet proceeds to apply the Charter to the prerogative of de la prerogative de priorite etait de recom,aitre la priority. The author submits that the purpose of the notion medierale de preeminence et superiorite prerogative priority is to recogni:e the medieval person11elle de la Reine sur ses sujets, et qu'un tel concept of the personal pre-eminence and superiority objet est contraire aux valeurs promues par la of the Queen over her subjects and that such a garalltie d' egalite e11oncee dons I' art.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union Act Is a Good Example of a Bad Law
    blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/25381 The European Union Act is a good example of a bad law Jo Murkens argues that the European Union Act of 2011 should be viewed as a failed statute. Amongst other flaws the Act does not truly empower the people and is legally inconsistent. If there was one area in which the two coalition parties needed to produce a workable agreement as a matter of priority af ter the May 2010 election, it was the European Union. The European Union Act (EUA) 2011 contains all sorts of compromises: it delivers a ref erendum requirement, but not on the Lisbon Treaty; it af f irms that the source of the validity of EU law is a domestic statute, but without mentioning the sovereignty of Parliament; it introduces constitutional saf eguards, but without entrenching them against repeal by a f uture Parliament. Unf ortunately, the EUA does not ref lect the politics of compromise in a consensus democracy: it ref lects dissent between the governing parties and within the Conservative party and, in most respects, is a compromised and f ailed statute. The EUA builds on a political guarantee in the coalition agreement that there will be no transf ers of sovereign powers until the next election (in 2015). That undertaking was intended to pacif y the Europhobic wing of the Conservative party that had demanded but f ailed to get a national ref erendum on the hated Lisbon Treaty. It also f inds expression in two legal themes that run through the EUA.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Issues Prepared in the Absence of the Initial Report of Malawi
    List of issues prepared in the absence of the initial report of Malawi Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented (art. 2) 1. Please explain whether the Covenant can be directly invoked and given effect by courts, tribunals and administrative authorities, in line with the May 2007 ruling of the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal? If so, please provide examples of such cases. What measures have been taken to raise awareness about the Covenant among public officials and State agents, in particular through training of judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers? (1) Whether the Covenant can be directly invoked and given effect by courts (a) Section 211(1) of the Constitution provides that any international agreement ratified by an Act of Parliament shall form part of the law of Malawi if so provided for in the Act of Parliament ratifying the agreement. International agreements entered into before the Constitution came into force also form part of the law of Malawi. Malawi ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 22 December, 1993. The Covenant, therefore, forms part of the law of Malawi. (b) Malawi is a dualist State as such, no international Convention can have the force of law in the country before incorporation into the GE.11- domestic laws. The Covenant cannot, therefore, be directly invoked. However, Chapter IV of the Constitution provides for human rights and section 10 provides that in interpreting all laws, the provisions of the Constitution shall be regarded as the supreme arbiter and ultimate source of authority. In that regard, courts, tribunals and administrative authorities do consider the provisions of the Covenant in applying the law to ensure conformity with international law and obligations under the Covenant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Putative Spouse and Marriage by Estoppel Doctrines: an "End Run Around Marriage" Or Just a Marriage?
    Child and Family Law Journal Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 3 3-27-2020 The Putative Spouse and Marriage by Estoppel Doctrines: An "End Run Around Marriage" or Just a Marriage? Dana E. Prescott, Esq., Ph.D Follow this and additional works at: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cflj Part of the Elder Law Commons, Family Law Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Prescott, Esq., Ph.D, Dana E. (2020) "The Putative Spouse and Marriage by Estoppel Doctrines: An "End Run Around Marriage" or Just a Marriage?," Child and Family Law Journal: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cflj/vol8/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Barry Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Child and Family Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Barry Law. The Putative Spouse and Marriage by Estoppel Doctrines: An “End Run Around Marriage” or Just a Marriage? Dana E. Prescott, Esq., Ph.D* I. INTRODUCTION For generations in the United States, each state determined the definition of a legally recognized marriage.1 Indeed, the United States Supreme Court long ago held that marriage “has always been subject to the control of the [state] legislature.”2 For the most part, these early notions of “federalism”3 permitted states to constrain the definition of a lawful marriage. States did so without much public controversy; at least when consistent with socially and legally *Dana E. Prescott is licensed to practice in Maine and Massachusetts and a partner with Prescott, Jamieson, & Murphy Law Group LLC, Saco, Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Instruments Revised May 2008
    Factsheet L7 House of Commons Information Office Legislative Series Statutory Instruments Revised May 2008 Contents Introduction 2 Statutory Instruments 2 What is a Statutory Instrument? 2 Drafting 2 Preamble 2 This Factsheet has been archived so the Explanatory Notes 2 content and web links may be out of Explanatory Memoranda 3 date. Please visit our About Parliament Parliamentary procedure on SIs 3 pages for current information. Frequently used terms 3 Negative Procedure 4 Affirmative Procedure 5 Rejection of Statutory Instruments 5 Joint Committee on Statutory Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a form of Instruments 6 legislation which allow the provisions of an The Lords Committee on the Merits Act of Parliament to be subsequently of Statutory Instruments. 6 brought into force or altered without Debates on SIs in the House of Parliament having to pass a new Act. They Commons 7 are also referred to as secondary, delegated Delegated Legislation Committees 7 or subordinate legislation. This Factsheet Other types of delegated legislation 8 Regulatory Reform Orders 8 discusses the background to SIs, the Debates on Regulatory Reform procedural rules they must follow, and their Orders 9 parliamentary scrutiny. It also looks at the Remedial Orders 10 other types of delegated legislation. Commencement orders 10 Orders in Council 11 Orders of Council 11 Local SIs 11 Finding out about SIs 11 Publication and Bibliographic Control 12 Appendix A 13 Statistics on delegated legislation and deregulation orders 13 Appendix B 15 Comprehensive summary table of what can and cannot be presented or laid during recesses. 15 Further Reading 16 MayContact 2008 information 16 FSFeed No.backL7 Ed form 3.9 17 ISSN 0144-4689 © Parliamentary Copyright (House of Commons) 2008 May be reproduced for purposes of private study or research without permission.
    [Show full text]