Public - Supremacy: Principles And Cases Quiz

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

not-available-via-ai

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 This rule states that Parliament cannot bind itself or future Parliaments, meaning that any law can be repealed or amended by a subsequent Parliament.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

not-available-via-ai

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.

not-available-via-ai

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.

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.

not-available-via-ai