Can anyone explain how you can have parliamentary supremacy and separation of powers - they are mutually exclusive! You cannot have both. I'd also like to know what evidence the video relies upon for the idea that parliament create law - where exactly is that authority granted - I can find that they are able to create legislation but not law and that is explicitly not a power per their constituting document (BoR 1688) - article 13 - they may amend, strengthen and preserve - when did the idea that they create it come into being as I cannot locate anything (except for people religiously stating that they do) that grants them this authority - would love to have an answer, seems that most people assume that they can when they can't.
I wouldn’t say the BoR is really useful for this. The BoR simply repeats parliaments role and grievances thats its had for the last 80 years. Its not radical. But i think your phrasing is wrong, they’re not creating it into being, its created into being by royal ascent and this has always been the case from ‘ancient Anglo Saxon customs’
@@chaplain6141 I understand why you might think that it is a continuity (and similarly why you might see the grievance aspect - given the list of grievances set out in the BoR) however let's question whether it was a radical departure or not as you suggest. Let's look at the creating of it (parliament) - you state that it's a carry over from it's ancient self. That's not supported in fact. This was a whole new parliament (and all since are its offspring), it was a radical break from tradition, it might look and feel the same but it manifestly wasn't. This is evidenced by the first act of the 'new' parliament. If you note how the wording is utterly at odds with any other Act. This 1st Act creates the two fictions of law, the house of commons and the house of lords, they are sprung, not from royal prerogative but simply by the assembly (convention) creating the houses themselves for the first time (so broke with the old) as though "they had beene Summoned according to the usuall Forme". In other words, no royal involvement - they were putting an end to the divine right of kings and did so, not by employing the divine right of kings to call them into being but simply by doing so themselves using the cloak of tradition. Ie: this might look like the old but it most certainly is not, it had no king call it into being. That is the first act of parliament, it's making itself - this parliament is no longer the old one. The second act, the BoR, is similarly at odds in it's opening, as to is the coronation oath (taken together the BoR and Coronation Oath (under the 4 corner rule) is the current parliamentary constitution) - after those documents you then get the standard opening for every other act of parliament since those - "Bee it enacted by the King and Queens most excellent Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authoritie of the same" - prior to that you don't have that as the 1st act (creates) and the BoR and Coronation Oath then defines the T&C's - parliamentary sovereignty over HM, the limitations on parliament (specifically the job description of the 13th Article) and the role of the crown via the coronation oath, separation of powers, independent judiciary especially. Taken together a very tidy system which absolute puts the sword to the idea of parliamentary sovereignty over anything other than HM and certainly not you and I whose birthright is Law as defined by the Act of Settlement 1700. Law, properly understood is not the plaything of parliament, they have legislative authority only and none of what they do has the force of law until tested in the independent judiciary where you and I create law. I'd ask one question, the glorious revolution was about resolving the problems that never got properly fixed by Cromwell (he hadn't quite figured it out), do you think that in finally putting paid to the divine right of kings (effectively closed the problem of tyrannical kings) that they then opened the path to the divine right of parliament. It's a basic mis-understanding of what they actually did with the glorious revolution, a mis-understanding which is common and costing us dearly to this day. (I'd recommend reading John Somers (the guy who wrote the BoR) he wrote a pamphlet called "The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations: Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, and the Rights, Priviledges, and Properties of the People". That pamplet is a superb explanation of quite how revolutionary they were. They basically informed that government is by the people for the benefit of the people or it has no right in being at all - it also talks to how the people have to hold government accountable or basically end up where we have ended up today - he refers to it as passive obedience. Quite insightful! www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/1/contents For the 1st Act - please note no kings or queens involved here.
@@user-ox4hw1qy1f The reason why the majority of historians don't believe its radical (One of the leading historians in this area, Barry Coward, believes that the long parliament is the most radical area) and actually heavily demur the traditional 20th century whig view of the Dutch invasion is that, again, parliament had simply an opportunity to enact the constitutional monarchy they had always desired especially after the 1670s (Mainly Whigs and Development of country politics seen with john locke and hobbes), with a connection to previous events. There is a clear timeline starting from the short and long parliaments all the way to the BoR and acts of settlement. As well when i say the 'old anglo saxon customs', this is simply just kind of a quasi precedent that more 'radical' politicians used such as Pym and Shaffestbury to challenge royal prerogative. We can see it with the petition of rights in 1626, the nineteen propositions and grand remonstrance, which historians argue were much more radical than what the BoR did. Also youtube sucks for these debates, i would explain my points so much better in voice haha :P
@@chaplain6141 Agreed to it not being a particularly fine venue... & thank you for your considered reply - I guess how I examine it is less based on opinion but on fact, I find for instance that Dicey made many obit points which are now considered fact whereas they do not stand scrutiny. I find the pamphlet enlightening as much is written (by whom I would consider to be expert opinion in Somers as the principal author of the BoR) to elucidate what he clearly could not get into the BoR but is there by omission - ie: the 13th article's power rests in how it explicitly states that parliament cannot create law - this is the correct position for a scholar of law which is very much not understood by the majority of the legal profession, it's a blind spot which speaks to the nature of authority that they seem unable to consider. Anyway - I am due to watch a recent video recording on statutory interpretation that will likely prove to be much closer to the truth - once I am happy that it does so I will post it up. Meanwhile I have yet to see that bit of paper of theirs which confers the authority on parliament to create law - the parliamentary library do not seem to want to play ball! thank you for your thoughts.
Sir you really helped pass my mock exam, Thanks a lot and keep videos like these coming
Glad to hear that. Glad it was helpful! Good luck if you are taking any exams soon.
This is really helpful!
Glad it was helpful! Good luck if you are taking any exams soon.
Can anyone explain how you can have parliamentary supremacy and separation of powers - they are mutually exclusive! You cannot have both. I'd also like to know what evidence the video relies upon for the idea that parliament create law - where exactly is that authority granted - I can find that they are able to create legislation but not law and that is explicitly not a power per their constituting document (BoR 1688) - article 13 - they may amend, strengthen and preserve - when did the idea that they create it come into being as I cannot locate anything (except for people religiously stating that they do) that grants them this authority - would love to have an answer, seems that most people assume that they can when they can't.
I wouldn’t say the BoR is really useful for this. The BoR simply repeats parliaments role and grievances thats its had for the last 80 years. Its not radical. But i think your phrasing is wrong, they’re not creating it into being, its created into being by royal ascent and this has always been the case from ‘ancient Anglo Saxon customs’
@@chaplain6141 I understand why you might think that it is a continuity (and similarly why you might see the grievance aspect - given the list of grievances set out in the BoR) however let's question whether it was a radical departure or not as you suggest. Let's look at the creating of it (parliament) - you state that it's a carry over from it's ancient self. That's not supported in fact. This was a whole new parliament (and all since are its offspring), it was a radical break from tradition, it might look and feel the same but it manifestly wasn't. This is evidenced by the first act of the 'new' parliament. If you note how the wording is utterly at odds with any other Act. This 1st Act creates the two fictions of law, the house of commons and the house of lords, they are sprung, not from royal prerogative but simply by the assembly (convention) creating the houses themselves for the first time (so broke with the old) as though "they had beene Summoned according to the usuall Forme". In other words, no royal involvement - they were putting an end to the divine right of kings and did so, not by employing the divine right of kings to call them into being but simply by doing so themselves using the cloak of tradition. Ie: this might look like the old but it most certainly is not, it had no king call it into being. That is the first act of parliament, it's making itself - this parliament is no longer the old one. The second act, the BoR, is similarly at odds in it's opening, as to is the coronation oath (taken together the BoR and Coronation Oath (under the 4 corner rule) is the current parliamentary constitution) - after those documents you then get the standard opening for every other act of parliament since those - "Bee it enacted by the King and Queens most excellent Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authoritie of the same" - prior to that you don't have that as the 1st act (creates) and the BoR and Coronation Oath then defines the T&C's - parliamentary sovereignty over HM, the limitations on parliament (specifically the job description of the 13th Article) and the role of the crown via the coronation oath, separation of powers, independent judiciary especially. Taken together a very tidy system which absolute puts the sword to the idea of parliamentary sovereignty over anything other than HM and certainly not you and I whose birthright is Law as defined by the Act of Settlement 1700. Law, properly understood is not the plaything of parliament, they have legislative authority only and none of what they do has the force of law until tested in the independent judiciary where you and I create law. I'd ask one question, the glorious revolution was about resolving the problems that never got properly fixed by Cromwell (he hadn't quite figured it out), do you think that in finally putting paid to the divine right of kings (effectively closed the problem of tyrannical kings) that they then opened the path to the divine right of parliament. It's a basic mis-understanding of what they actually did with the glorious revolution, a mis-understanding which is common and costing us dearly to this day. (I'd recommend reading John Somers (the guy who wrote the BoR) he wrote a pamphlet called "The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations: Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, and the Rights, Priviledges, and Properties of the People". That pamplet is a superb explanation of quite how revolutionary they were. They basically informed that government is by the people for the benefit of the people or it has no right in being at all - it also talks to how the people have to hold government accountable or basically end up where we have ended up today - he refers to it as passive obedience. Quite insightful!
www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/1/contents
For the 1st Act - please note no kings or queens involved here.
@@user-ox4hw1qy1f The reason why the majority of historians don't believe its radical (One of the leading historians in this area, Barry Coward, believes that the long parliament is the most radical area) and actually heavily demur the traditional 20th century whig view of the Dutch invasion is that, again, parliament had simply an opportunity to enact the constitutional monarchy they had always desired especially after the 1670s (Mainly Whigs and Development of country politics seen with john locke and hobbes), with a connection to previous events. There is a clear timeline starting from the short and long parliaments all the way to the BoR and acts of settlement. As well when i say the 'old anglo saxon customs', this is simply just kind of a quasi precedent that more 'radical' politicians used such as Pym and Shaffestbury to challenge royal prerogative. We can see it with the petition of rights in 1626, the nineteen propositions and grand remonstrance, which historians argue were much more radical than what the BoR did.
Also youtube sucks for these debates, i would explain my points so much better in voice haha :P
@@chaplain6141 Agreed to it not being a particularly fine venue... & thank you for your considered reply - I guess how I examine it is less based on opinion but on fact, I find for instance that Dicey made many obit points which are now considered fact whereas they do not stand scrutiny. I find the pamphlet enlightening as much is written (by whom I would consider to be expert opinion in Somers as the principal author of the BoR) to elucidate what he clearly could not get into the BoR but is there by omission - ie: the 13th article's power rests in how it explicitly states that parliament cannot create law - this is the correct position for a scholar of law which is very much not understood by the majority of the legal profession, it's a blind spot which speaks to the nature of authority that they seem unable to consider. Anyway - I am due to watch a recent video recording on statutory interpretation that will likely prove to be much closer to the truth - once I am happy that it does so I will post it up. Meanwhile I have yet to see that bit of paper of theirs which confers the authority on parliament to create law - the parliamentary library do not seem to want to play ball! thank you for your thoughts.