HarvestingSeason
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
So in one of my Public Law lectures, the lecturer was talking about the power of constitutional conventions. One of the cases he referenced was Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke. Apparently, the Privy Council ruled that parliamentary sovereignty (a constitutional principle) takes priority over constitutional conventions. But here's the bit that's confusing.

How do you differentiate between a "constitutional principle" and a "convention"? They seem to both be equally abstract.

The answer I got when I asked that question at a tutorial was that the distinction (by distinction I mean the fact that constitutional principles are supreme authorities, whereas conventions aren't necessarily such) comes from Dicey's definition of constitutional principles, which just confused me even more. Did Dicey just describe the state of things or is his word taken as authoritative?

If he just described the de facto state, what legal authority did the Privy Council base its decision on? As far as I understand it, convention alone is not enough to reach a decision.

If his word is taken as the authority, then my question would be how the f*ck you can base an entire system of government on one scholar's writings?
Last edited by HarvestingSeason; 1 year ago
0
reply
Audrey18
Badges: 21
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
all the answers you're looking for and more can be found here.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...-in-the-uk.php
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (285)
56.21%
I don't have everything I need (222)
43.79%

Watched Threads

View All