Public - Supremacy: Principles And Cases Quiz

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Chriscullen
C
Chriscullen
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 12 | Total Attempts: 2,387
Questions: 20 | Attempts: 56

SettingsSettingsSettings
Public - Supremacy: Principles And Cases Quiz - Quiz

This quiz will test your knowledge of the principles and cases relevant to Supremacy.
It contains 20 questions on the cases and principles of Supremacy. Covering the traditional view, the rules, and the challenges to the conventional view, including the part the European Commission plays in diminishing the UK's Parliamentary supremacy.


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    The traditional view of Supremacy was established by which constitutional theorist?

    • A.

      Dicey

    • B.

      Pickin

    • C.

      Ellen

    Correct Answer
    A. Dicey
    Explanation
    Dicey is the correct answer because he is widely recognized as the constitutional theorist who established the traditional view of Supremacy. Dicey's concept of parliamentary sovereignty, outlined in his book "The Law of the Constitution," emphasized the absolute authority of Parliament in making and unmaking laws. His ideas greatly influenced the development of constitutional law in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries.

    Rate this question:

  • 2. 

    Fill in the blank word of this phrase: Supremacy is the _______ rule of our legal system.

    Correct Answer
    Fundamental
    fundamental
    FUNDAMENTAL
    Explanation
    The word "fundamental" is the correct answer in this case. It is used to describe the rule of our legal system as being essential, basic, or foundational. The repetition of the word in different cases (capitalized, lowercase, and capitalized) suggests that the answer is not case-sensitive and any form of the word would be considered correct.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    Parliament can make/change any law, and the court cannot question any bill that has been through the drafting process and received Royal Assent. Which rule is this sentence referring to?

    • A.

      Implied repeal rule

    • B.

      Enrolled bill rule

    • C.

      No limit to territorial extent

    Correct Answer
    B. Enrolled bill rule
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Enrolled bill rule. This rule states that once a bill has gone through the drafting process and received Royal Assent, the court cannot question its validity. This means that Parliament has the power to make or change any law without being challenged by the court. The enrolled bill rule ensures that once a bill becomes law, it is considered valid and binding.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    Parliament cannot bind itself or the next Parliament in power - otherwise, Parliament wouldn't be supreme. Which rule is this sentence referring to?

    • A.

      Implied repeal rule

    • B.

      Enrolled bill rule

    • C.

      No limit to territorial extent

    Correct Answer
    A. Implied repeal rule
    Explanation
    This sentence is referring to the implied repeal rule. This rule states that Parliament cannot bind itself or future Parliaments, meaning that any law can be repealed or amended by a subsequent Parliament. This ensures that Parliament remains supreme and has the power to make and change laws as needed.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    There is no limit to the territorial extent of Parliaments law-making powers. In other words: "Parliament can legislate for all people in all places" Who quoted the above statement?

    • A.

      Ivor Jennings

    • B.

      Albert Dicey

    • C.

      Lord Denning

    Correct Answer
    A. Ivor Jennings
    Explanation
    Ivor Jennings is the correct answer because he is known for his work in constitutional law and legal theory. He was a British jurist and academic who served as a professor of constitutional law and dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge. His statement reflects his belief that Parliament has unlimited legislative powers and can make laws that apply to all people in all places.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    Now we will work through the different rules - The Enrolled Bill Rule; which case established that the courts cannot inquire into the passing of legislation? The claimant, in this case, questioned the validity of a private Act as he received no notice of the passing of the Act which would have a great detrimental effect on him. Held: Courts can only look at what is on the parliamentary roll, cannot question the legislative process.

    • A.

      British Railways Board v Pickin

    • B.

      Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corp

    • C.

      Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope

    Correct Answer
    C. Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope
    Explanation
    In the case of Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope, the court established the Enrolled Bill Rule, which states that the courts cannot inquire into the passing of legislation. The claimant in this case argued that a private Act had been passed without giving him notice, which would negatively impact him. However, the court held that they can only consider what is recorded on the parliamentary roll and cannot question the legislative process. Therefore, the correct answer is Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    Enrolled Bill Rule; In this case, the claimant suggested that an Act was passed fraudulently. Held: Applied Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope: cannot question the legislative process. Select the name of the case and the Act this case relates to.

    • A.

      British Railways Board v Pickin

    • B.

      Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corp

    • C.

      British Railways Act 1968

    • D.

      Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919

    Correct Answer(s)
    A. British Railways Board v Pickin
    C. British Railways Act 1968
  • 8. 

    Implied Repeal Rule: Parliament cannot bind itself, otherwise, it wouldn't be supreme. There are two types of repeal: Implied and Express repeal. Which act unsuccessfully tried to protect itself from repeal?

    • A.

      Housing Act 1925

    • B.

      Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919

    • C.

      British Railways Act 1968

    Correct Answer
    B. Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919
    Explanation
    The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 unsuccessfully tried to protect itself from repeal. This act attempted to prevent its own repeal by including provisions that made it difficult to amend or repeal the act. However, according to the Implied Repeal Rule, Parliament cannot bind itself, as it would undermine its own supremacy. Therefore, despite the efforts made by the act, it was still subject to potential repeal.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    So, we've established that the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation Act) 1919 tried to bind successive acts from repealing - but the Housing Act 1925 successfully impliedly repealed the Act. Which of the following cases established that where there is an inconsistency in Acts, the newest act stands - regardless of how definite the wording may be.

    • A.

      Fleet Street Casuals

    • B.

      Ellen St Estates v Ministry of Health

    • C.

      Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corp.

    • D.

      Costa v ENEL

    Correct Answer(s)
    B. Ellen St Estates v Ministry of Health
    C. Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corp.
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Ellen St Estates v Ministry of Health, Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corp. These cases established the principle that when there is an inconsistency between acts, the newest act prevails, regardless of the wording. This means that the Housing Act 1925, being the newest act, impliedly repealed the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation Act) 1919.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    Territorial Extent of Parliament is not limited. Ivor Jennings quoted that "Parliament can legislate for all people in all places." However, it would be unpractical for instance for the UK Parliament to ban smoking on the streets of Paris, as they would not be able to enforce it. Which of the following Acts contains evidence that Parliament is not limited by Territory?

    • A.

      Equal Pay Act 1970

    • B.

      Parliament Act 1949

    • C.

      Aviation Security Act 1982

    Correct Answer
    C. Aviation Security Act 1982
    Explanation
    The Aviation Security Act 1982 contains evidence that Parliament is not limited by territory because it is a law that governs aviation security, which is not limited to a specific geographical area. This suggests that Parliament has the power to legislate on matters that extend beyond national borders, reinforcing the idea that its territorial extent is not limited.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    The Traditional View of parliamentary supremacy by Dicey was that Parliament had could make and change any law it wishes, and the courts must enact and not question any legislation passed through the scrutinous process of drafting and passing of legislation. This view has been challenged by a number of changes - firstly, an Act was passed in 1911 which limited the power of Parliament by reducing the maximum term of Parliament from 7 to 5 years. This makes it difficult for Parliament to pass potentially unpopular legislation during their parliamentary term - as when by the time it has been passed it can be nearing the next general elections. This act also scrapped the House of Lords power to "veto" a bill - they could only delay a bill from the House of Commons for a maximum of 2 years. Which act made these changes?

    • A.

      Parliament Act

    • B.

      European Communities Act

    • C.

      Merchant Shipping Act

    Correct Answer
    A. Parliament Act
    Explanation
    The Parliament Act made these changes. It was passed in 1911 and it limited the power of Parliament by reducing the maximum term from 7 to 5 years. It also eliminated the House of Lords' power to veto a bill, allowing them to only delay it for a maximum of 2 years. These changes challenged the traditional view of parliamentary supremacy by placing limitations on the power of Parliament.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    Dicey's view that the range of what can become law should be limitless was subject to the intense scrutiny to which they received at the time when he wrote Law of Constitution in 1885 (before the development of the Parliament Act 1911). This and the Parliament Act 1949 reduced the amount of scrutiny by limiting the powers of the House of Lords to veto a bill. The newer 1949 act limited the House of Lords powers further by:

    • A.

      Not allowing the House of Lords any involvement in the legislative process at all

    • B.

      Reducing the time they could delay an Act from being passed to 1 year

    • C.

      Abolishing the House of Lords as the highest UK appeal court, and replacing the role with the Supreme Court

    Correct Answer
    B. Reducing the time they could delay an Act from being passed to 1 year
    Explanation
    The correct answer suggests that the Parliament Act 1949 reduced the amount of scrutiny by limiting the time the House of Lords could delay an Act from being passed to 1 year. This means that the House of Lords had less power to obstruct or veto legislation, thereby streamlining the legislative process and reducing the potential for delays.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    In this case, the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 were questioned - however, the courts held they could not question the process of making of law (Enrolled Bill Rule). However, Lord Steyn and Lord Hope commented on Parliamentary Supremacy, stating that; although it is still the general principle that Parliament is supreme - this is judge-made so may have its limits... Also, although the constitution is dominated by the supremacy of Parl. this is no longer - if it ever was - absolute. Which case?

    • A.

      Costa v ENEL 1964

    • B.

      Jackson v AG 2005

    • C.

      Internationale Handel-blah case 1970

    Correct Answer
    B. Jackson v AG 2005
  • 14. 

    The next and final section covers the biggest challenge to the supremacy of Parliament, the European Commission. The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. (So the overall body - NOT the same as the Council of Europe!) As we know, the Laws (Regulations) and Decisions (from the European Court of Justice) must be enacted by its member states (including the UK) - But which case (decided in the ECJ) established this rule of ultimate supremacy?

    • A.

      Simmenthal

    • B.

      Factortame

    • C.

      Costa v ENEL

    Correct Answer
    C. Costa v ENEL
  • 15. 

    So, Costa v ENEL 1964 established that all EU member states must enact the laws and decisions made by the EU. The UK have placed this into a specific Act of parliament to ensure consistency with the decisions and laws made by the EU - which act is this?

    • A.

      Act of Union

    • B.

      Article 119 EC Treaty

    • C.

      European Communities Act

    Correct Answer
    C. European Communities Act
    Explanation
    The correct answer is the European Communities Act. The European Communities Act is the specific Act of parliament in the UK that ensures consistency with the decisions and laws made by the EU. This Act incorporates EU law into domestic law and gives EU law supremacy over conflicting domestic laws.

    Rate this question:

  • 16. 

    NOTE: The choices for the following questions relate to particular points within supremacy about the EC, so read the question very carefully before answering. The EC protects UK citizens' fundamental rights. Which case established this point?

    • A.

      McCarthy's v Smith

    • B.

      Internationale Handel-blah

    • C.

      Simmenthal

    Correct Answer
    B. Internationale Handel-blah
  • 17. 

    The court's must ignore conflicting national laws.

    • A.

      McCarthy's v Smith

    • B.

      Internationale Handle-blah

    • C.

      Simmenthal

    Correct Answer
    C. Simmenthal
    Explanation
    Simmenthal is the correct answer because it established the principle of direct effect, which means that conflicting national laws must be set aside when they conflict with European Union law. This principle ensures that EU law takes precedence over national laws and allows individuals to rely on EU law before national courts. The case of Simmenthal was a landmark decision in the European Court of Justice and has had a significant impact on the supremacy of EU law over national laws.

    Rate this question:

  • 18. 

    The European Communities Act 1972 ensures that the UK is never at risk of being penalized by the ECJ for not complying with the laws and decisions of the EU. s. 2(1) EC Law "shall be given effect." s. 3 EC Law effect shall be decided in accordance with "any relevant decision of the ECJ" In this case, Lord Denning described EU Treaties as "an overriding force - not an aid" where there was a clash between the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Art. 119 EC Treaty

    • A.

      McCarthy's v Smith

    • B.

      Factortame

    • C.

      Thoburn v Sunderland CC

    Correct Answer
    A. McCarthy's v Smith
    Explanation
    The case of McCarthy's v Smith is a relevant example because it demonstrates the principle that the European Communities Act 1972 ensures the supremacy of EU law over domestic law in the UK. Lord Denning's statement in this case illustrates that EU Treaties have a higher authority and can override conflicting domestic legislation, such as the Equal Pay Act 1970. This highlights the importance of the European Communities Act 1972 in protecting the UK from potential penalties by the European Court of Justice for non-compliance with EU laws and decisions.

    Rate this question:

  • 19. 

    In this case, a section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 conflicted with rules laid out by EC prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Lord Bridge - Merchant Shipping Act does not become void - but the conflicting section - EC Law prevails - the UK section becomes "invisible"

    • A.

      Thoburn v Sunderland CC

    • B.

      Factortame

    • C.

      Simmenthal

    Correct Answer
    B. Factortame
    Explanation
    The correct answer, Factortame, refers to a landmark case in European Union law. In Factortame, the European Court of Justice held that EU law takes precedence over conflicting national laws, even if they are enacted after the EU law. This principle, known as the supremacy of EU law, means that the conflicting section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 would be deemed "invisible" or unenforceable in light of the EC rules prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of nationality. The case established an important precedent regarding the relationship between EU law and national laws within member states.

    Rate this question:

  • 20. 

    As per the Factortame case, UK laws cannot impliedly repeal EC Law - so the older EC rules on discrimination on the grounds of nationality prevailed and were given effect over the newer UK legislation. Lord Justice Laws, in this case, defined a Hierarchy of Law - stating that constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed however can be expressly repealed. IMPORTANT: Note LJ Laws mentioned Constitutional Statutes - Express Repeal Only!

    • A.

      McCarthys v Smith

    • B.

      Thoburn v Sunderland CC

    • C.

      International Handel-blah

    Correct Answer
    B. Thoburn v Sunderland CC
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Thoburn v Sunderland CC. In this case, Lord Justice Laws established the principle that constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed but can only be expressly repealed. This means that UK laws cannot impliedly repeal EC Law, and therefore the older EC rules on discrimination on the grounds of nationality prevailed over newer UK legislation. The other cases mentioned, McCarthys v Smith and International Handel-blah, are not relevant to the explanation.

    Rate this question:

Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.