The power to dissolve parliament is “perhaps the most important residual prerogative exercised personally by the sovereign, and represents the greatest potential for controversy.”[15] This prerogative is normally exercised at the request of the prime minister, either at his or her discretion or following a motion of no confidence. Constitutional theorists have had differing views as to whether a unilateral dissolution of Parliament would be possible today; Sir Ivor Jennings wrote that a dissolution involves “the acquiescence of ministers”, and as such the monarch could not dissolve Parliament without ministerial consent; “if ministers refuse to give such advice, she can do no more than dismiss them”. A. V. Dicey, however, believed that in certain extreme circumstances the monarch could dissolve Parliament single-handedly, on the condition that “an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors … A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation.”
Following the ruling, Sunak said in a news conference Wednesday evening that he would “pass emergency legislation” to deem Rwanda a safe country and that he would “not allow foreign courts to block the flights” the U.K. plans to use to transfer migrants to the African country.
So, he’s not rejecting the ruling, but rather saying that he’ll have Parliament pass a law to permit it, which will simply render the ruling ineffective.
Here in the US, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review of federal laws; they asserted this power in Marbury v. Madison – which was a constitutional crisis – and it wasn’t disputed. That produced a lot of why the US works the way it does today.
So, SCOTUS can say “Congress has done something unconstitutional”. That invalidates the law. There’s no direct recourse the President or Congress has to override that.
That’s not how the British system works. The Supreme Court in the UK can say that the executive has done something that conflicts with British law. But it has no power of judicial review of laws that Parliament passes – it cannot invalidate laws Parliament puts through. Because the Westminster system is a parliamentary system rather than a presidential system, because the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament, the two are generally in accord. So if the Supreme Court says “what the executive is doing is illegal”, the Prime Minister can generally just have Parliament pass a law to make it legal.
There is no constitution in the UK separate from any law that Parliament might choose to pass. A simple majority in the House of Commons – technically the King-in-Parliament – is the absolute power in the UK, is where sovereignty is vested, whereas in the US, it is vested in the US Constitution, where the bar for constitutional revision is three-quarters of US states.
So in practice, the Supreme Court in the UK has much less ability to limit action of the British executive than SCOTUS does over here. It can really only do so if the executive and Parliament are in disagreement as to the proper course of action.
That would probably create a constitutional crisis in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
Just add it to the list of crises
Well yes, we’re all aware of the reality of that situation, but wouldn’t it be nice?
If only we had a body of people who could change the law on that problem.
That doesn’t sound like it’s ill-defined then.
The government have beaten you to it by rejecting a verdict of the supreme court today.
looks
If I understand aright what’s going on, I don’t believe that that’s a constitutional crisis.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213147180/uk-supreme-court-rwanda-asylum-policy-sunak
So, he’s not rejecting the ruling, but rather saying that he’ll have Parliament pass a law to permit it, which will simply render the ruling ineffective.
Here in the US, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review of federal laws; they asserted this power in Marbury v. Madison – which was a constitutional crisis – and it wasn’t disputed. That produced a lot of why the US works the way it does today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
So, SCOTUS can say “Congress has done something unconstitutional”. That invalidates the law. There’s no direct recourse the President or Congress has to override that.
That’s not how the British system works. The Supreme Court in the UK can say that the executive has done something that conflicts with British law. But it has no power of judicial review of laws that Parliament passes – it cannot invalidate laws Parliament puts through. Because the Westminster system is a parliamentary system rather than a presidential system, because the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament, the two are generally in accord. So if the Supreme Court says “what the executive is doing is illegal”, the Prime Minister can generally just have Parliament pass a law to make it legal.
There is no constitution in the UK separate from any law that Parliament might choose to pass. A simple majority in the House of Commons – technically the King-in-Parliament – is the absolute power in the UK, is where sovereignty is vested, whereas in the US, it is vested in the US Constitution, where the bar for constitutional revision is three-quarters of US states.
So in practice, the Supreme Court in the UK has much less ability to limit action of the British executive than SCOTUS does over here. It can really only do so if the executive and Parliament are in disagreement as to the proper course of action.
I was employing hyperbole, but yes you are right in the most detailed way possible
deleted by creator