This discussion is closed.
Toyosi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#1
Doubt anyone will know but what does it mean when the say the Human rights act isn't an entrenched or even partially entrenched bill of rights? Anyone????
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 16 years ago
#2
(Original post by Toyosi)
Doubt anyone will know but what does it mean when the say the Human rights act isn't an entrenched or even partially entrenched bill of rights? Anyone????
Meaning that it isn't recognised/enforced like a real law? Think entrench as old.crusty/regular etc
0
Toyosi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#3
hmm, it is a like a real law though.
Am so confused and bored of this stupid essay. Can't actually find will to do it. I've treated myself to a game of minesweeper everytime i write a good sentence. As you can imagine I'm not getting very far.
0
Toyosi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#4
The US Bill of Rights is entrenched. I don't really get the difference between them other than that the supreme court can strike down any law that infringes constitutional rights and the House of Lords can't do that. I thought that was it but the partially factor has thrown me.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 16 years ago
#5
(Original post by Toyosi)
The US Bill of Rights is entrenched. I don't really get the difference between them other than that the supreme court can strike down any law that infringes constitutional rights and the House of Lords can't do that. I thought that was it but the partially factor has thrown me.
Are you sure this isn't in your notes somewhere? maybe you'll ahve better luck there.
0
Toyosi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#6
It hasn't been mentioned in lectures so i have no notes. I've just read it in an article. Think i'd be better off just ignoring it or pretending I know what I'm on about without actually mentioning what it means. Sounds like a plan to me.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report 16 years ago
#7
The first ten ammendments to the US Constitution are collectively called the "Bill of Rights" They are said to be "entrenched" because they are positive rights, and cannot be abolished or much eroded by acts of congress.

This is why it is so difficult to pass gun laws here in the US. The second ammendment guarantees the "right to bear arms"

Most written constitutions are "entrenched" This means they give positive rights to citizens, the right to sufferage, the right to a fair trial, etc.

Theory has it that these rights cannot be taken away by the legislature except in extreme circumstances (although there is fierce debate in the US right now about how the hastily enacted Patriot's Act fits in with all this)

By contrast, the UK, has not entrenched rights but what con lawyers call "residual rights". Simply put, whereas in the US and France you can do anything expressly provided by law, in the UK you can do anything unless it is expressly prohibited. What Parliament doesn't say you can't do, you can do!

See the difference between positive entrenchment and residual rights?

The HRA was a piece of EU law that was enacted in Parliament in 1996 (I think)

To say that it is not entrenched is to say that Parliament could pass another act, lets call it the "Human Rights Abolition Act" at any time to abolish the HRA itself. This, it would be empowered to do on the premise of Parliamement being the supreme legislative body.

Whether this is true or not is wide open to debate. Should Parliament seek to abolish the Act then it would be in breach of European Law, which of course is in fact the most powerful form of law we now "enjoy" in the UK.

Having said that, Parliament's acceptance of the supremacy of EU law is itself only borne of other various Act of Parliament (for example, the EU Act) which of course Parliament could also rescind through another Act of Parliament!

So, while notions of "entrenchment" and "residual rights" are fairly easy to explaim it's not quite so simple to say whether the HRA is entrenched or not. Personally, I'd say that it isn't but you can see it's a pretty long winded argument and there's a lot of academic debate surrounding the constitutional effects of EU membership on the supremacy of Parliament.

Help any?


Howard
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 16 years ago
#8
(Original post by Howard)
.
WOW, thats amazing

Yes, Ive heard of teh thing before. Its like the UK law on ingredients in supplements, what they dont say is forbidden is allowed, whilst in euoland, what they say in a list is allowed only. Kinda same theory
0
Mary1736
Badges: 0
#9
Report 16 years ago
#9
The Human Rights Act was agreed in 1998 but did not come into force until October 2000. It was all pretty much covered in the common law of torts anyway, and even the idea of public authorities being liable to private citizens was covered by the doctrine of the rule of law, but the HRA looks good on the government's CV.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 16 years ago
#10
(Original post by Toyosi)
Doubt anyone will know but what does it mean when the say the Human rights act isn't an entrenched or even partially entrenched bill of rights? Anyone????
Parlimentary sovereignty still remains and it can be removed easily. Something that is entrenched also has an extraordinary process to alter it (such as USA bill of rights).
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 16 years ago
#11
Just to add to Howard's points, you could argue although it is not officially entrenched that because of structual constraints on parlimentary sovereignty (public opinion, media, embarrassement etc) that they would be unable to get rid of the HRA. As doing so would seriously damage their re election chances, so the move to do so would never happen. It is just like devolution where public opinion has entrenched the parliments (Hague - 'You can't unscramble the egg')
0
Matt the cat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 16 years ago
#12
(Original post by 2776)
WOW, thats amazing

Yes, Ive heard of teh thing before. Its like the UK law on ingredients in supplements, what they dont say is forbidden is allowed, whilst in euoland, what they say in a list is allowed only. Kinda same theory
That is pretty amazing, wow... wish i could come up with stuff like that
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 16 years ago
#13
(Original post by Matt the cat)
That is pretty amazing, wow... wish i could come up with stuff like that
You probably could if you were like Howard, who had about 20 years of legal experience.
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 16 years ago
#14
In sweden we have a slightly different system. Basicly here every law is either a normal law or a "fundamental law " ("Grund lag"). The fundamental laws typically deal with human rights and that Sweden should be a democracy etc etc. In order to alter a fundamental law the Swedish government must decide to do so at two different occasion and there must be governmental ellections in between.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#15
Report 16 years ago
#15
(Original post by 2776)
You probably could if you were like Howard, who had about 20 years of legal experience.
No. Just a common all garden law degree. If I had 20 years of legal experience I'd be busying myself billing $400/hour rather than talking about entrenchment on UK learning!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (37)
7.96%
Confident (62)
13.33%
Indifferent (64)
13.76%
Unsure (117)
25.16%
Worried (185)
39.78%

Watched Threads

View All