Public - Supremacy: Principles And Cases 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.
- 1.The traditional view of Supremacy was established by which constitutional theorist?
- A.
Dicey
- B.
Pickin
- C.
Ellen
- 2.Fill in the blank word of this phrase: Supremacy is the _______ rule of our legal system.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 17.The court's must ignore conflicting national laws.
- A.
McCarthy's v Smith
- B.
Internationale Handle-blah
- C.
Simmenthal
- 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
- 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
- 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
Back to top