What is parliamentary sovereignty? A legal explainer

[@MichaelofEngland]

Glad to see you are upholding the true rule of law, rather than fictitious and corrupt implications that parliament is sovereign.

[@markfirmin7748]

If a common man/ woman are brought to court, they have to be judged by a jury of their peers. The jury has to decide their guilt or innocence, but at the same time have to judge whether the law that brought them to court is also just. If they decide the law is unjust, the case will be thrown out.

[@Beliefisthedeathofintellect]

Bill of rights 1689 no fines fixtures nor forfeiture without judgement from your peers. 👍🏻

[@lisalisa1653]

Thank you. Nice, smooth, concise explanation. Easy to absorbed.

[@Ravi-eh9ux]

Sir please keep making videos on public law u are amazing in it and the energy i got from was so powerfull ,pls continue to teach us.

[@frankiefrank6850]

Hi, really enjoying the video and its giving me some nice concise notes for my upcoming exams! Can I suggest you include either in the video/annotations/box below the video, some citations e.g. when you mention recent case law regarding challenging parl. sup. it would be really helpful to be able to look up those judgements. Otherwise keep up the good work!

[@frankiefrank6850]

Or even just send me them here so I can show off haha

[@talkinglaw3507]

Hi - glad you enjoyed the video! And thank you for the suggestion - perhaps I can include references to case law in the description. Just on this issue you raise parliamentary sovereignty, I actually have a video ("parliamentary sovereignty vs the rule of law") that should be coming out imminently and deals directly with some of this case law!

[@ianminard9481]

Parliament isnt sovereign

[@waseemzahir94]

Thanks for this. Can you plz share any reference to case laws, which you mentioned?

[@Miles_Ahead547]

But where does it state that legislation applies ? I cannot find anything anywhere ??

[@cameron1896]

Hello, do you have the dicta or citations for the recent cases that comment on Parliamentary Sovereignty ? I'm studying Scots Law and one of our examinable topics is in relation to constitutional law so I appreciate you making this video!

[@Seaottters]

Hello from a fellow Scot’s law student

[@zarinali4828]

Hello, can please give me the name of the case where you mentioned that judges have said that may not recognise parliaments supposed act. I would really appreciate it.

[@imanbeauty2208]

Did parliamentary sovereignty has limitations?

[@lizabethcc1515]

Thank you for sharing! Can you please perhaps elaborate more by sharing some precedent or legal cases which happens to be supporting the saying that Parliament members can indeed enact legislations which were morally depraved? So there can be real case examples in which of proving this system was indeed actually being misused or morally damaged? Thank you.

[@talkinglaw3507]

Thank you and glad you liked the video - I will be discussing exactly this in an upcoming video, and can include some references in the description. I promise I'll get it up as soon as I can!

[@lizabethcc1515]

@@talkinglaw3507 Thank you. For I've done some core readings, and I believe the nature and scope of Parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of the common law. As such it is open to revision by the courts in circumstances where, say, a court has to reconcile contradictory statutory provisions, or a higher law, such as a fundamental human right, is violated. Also we can see that oppositely, the court has been taken up some authority control in the case of Miller. I know there is still many much more scope for further discussion on this topic. Potentially there may be more models of parliamentary sovereignty to be proposed later on in the future to fill in the holes of flaws in the other models. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK is debateable, as the many oddities that have arisen in the UK’s system over the preceding thousand years have created a working relationship which is as complex as it is vague. Still really appreciate your willingness to work and share on this topic.

[@talkinglaw3507]

@@lizabethcc1515 Thank you for your kind words - what you raise reflects absolutely some of the pressing issues in this area (including who is responsible for making and shaping the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty). I'll be aiming to put more videos up relating to these issues as when work allows!

[@johntimbrell]

@Talking Law. There is something seriously wrong with this man's assessment. He does not address the fact that Parliament is a corporastion and that all statute or parliamentary law is therefore subject to the law of contract. A contract requires consent of both parties. This is where the phrase 'policing by consent' arises. This is why the administrative courts require the agreement of a defendant before they can sit in judgement over him. Many maxims in law have to be observed in any case before the administrative courts. Firstly that all parties in a case must be equal. A living man defending himself has the right to cross examine his accuser. The people sitting in judgement cannot be cross examined, neither can the prosecutot because they are just representitives of the statute law, which is just a piece of paper. His accuser is a piece of paper.One cannot cross examine a piece of paper. The administrative courts get around this by going through a process getting the living man to take responsibility for the legal fiction. The bottom line in this is that our common law supercedes statute law if a statute is contrary to common law. Betty Boothroyd, when she was speaker stopped parliament proposing a law that was against our common law. Since then many laws have been passed which are against common law; notably the hate crime laws where judges have dismissed the charges because they offend our common law rights to speak freely. Recently the CPS dropped all defended lockdown law prosecutions because presumably they accepted that ordering someone to stay in their home was unlawful imprisonment. Likewise in the Jalloh case the Supreme court ruled that the police ordering a man to stay in his home ovenight as a condition of bail as defined in the statute was unlawful imprisonment. It really is very simple. We either have a true democracy based on our common law rights and freedoms coupled with the statutory law which we need provided those statute laws do not take away our common law rights and freedoms. This is why a constable becomes a trespasser if he refuses to leave when requested to leave by a lawful occupier of a house. The PACE Act does not recognise this by giving a constable rights to force entry to an occupied house. This is unlawful if challenged as in the case of Davis v Lisle. This is why the criminal law act 1977 sect 6 makes it an offence for anyone to use force to enter occupied property unless they have lawful authority. Note it does not give legal authority. Legal refers to parliamentary law. Lawful is common law. Wake up folks people like the man in this video are attempting to enslave you.

[@kt5661]

What a load of nonsense? Its such crap its difficult to know where to start.

[@johntimbrell]

@@kt5661 If you are replying to my comment, just give me one example of where you think that I am wrong. If you are commenting on the video then read and understand my comment. Just being abusive lowers people's opinion of your intelect.

[@heshnapatel7766]

great work done, more videos on such topics please

[@marchorn466]

What is the principle of law that one parliament cannot bind another... because whatever that principle of law is the same principle is that no one can evidence the right to impose their will upon another, and hence by implication Parliament cannot bind you or I....

[@relaxationmeditationretrea921]

So parliament can create obligations on other men and women

[@ianminard9481]

Bull. Act of settlement 1700 Bill of rights 1688 Coronation oath act 1688 All of these state the government is not sovereign over the people

[@genuinearticle33]

Indeed, it is expressly provided for in those Constitutional enactments that their is a separation between Legislation, and Law and Customs ...however the Law we make in the Independent Courts as per our Custom is dependent on the Independence of the Judiciary to facilitate the same, Equity ultimately over-reaches precedent.

[@kt5661]

This is all legislation passed by Parliament. You seem to be implying that those laws you list have some sort of magical power. You don't seem to understand they are created by a single sovereign body, Parliament.

[@ianminard9481]

@@kt5661 parliament isnt sovereign over the people, the people created the goverment, we are sovereign over the 650 mps they work for us, we dont work for the goverment,

[@ordinarybloke6962]

Also: jurors are, in fact, judges who may find statutes to be bad and can nullify them. Parliament with monarch may do nothing to the prejudice of the people, bill of rights 1688. People are principal, parliament is their agent. Government is agent to parliament with monarch. Therefore the people are the principal sovereigns. Application of statutes requires consent of the people. Law, on the other hand is the people's birth right Authority of monarch and government is limited by the people's Law, common law and also correctly applied equity and tradition. Common law says to do no harm nor injury nor cause anyone else a loss. That's fair and straight-forward. Try to make redress or compensation to restore peace.

[@trappedinroom1014]

The bill of rights does not apply to living men and women, unless of course you’re happy to be removed off the land and into their water based ‘ship’! You get a ‘Bill of Rights’ as a passenger on a ship. The Magna carter was also part of the early legal/civil take over of this land…the ‘great charter’ was chartering a company or vessel…again, creating a jurisdiction separate from the land. Everything in the world of legal/civil is a deceptive illusion all based upon assumption.

[@kt5661]

​@@trappedinroom1014😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@kt5661]

Your argument is so stupid. The Bill of Rights Act 1689 is an Act of Parliament, otherwise known as legislation. Your argument that somehow the Bill of Rights limits Parliament and supports your nonsensical position is laughable.

[@Hup-x1y]

Honor the treaty

[@toker6664]

Has modern parliaments bsen hamstrung by Tony Blairs instigation of the EHRC?

[@kt5661]

We've been signatories of the ECHR since 1951. It wasn't Tony Blair that 'instigated' the ECHR its existed since 1949. The Labour governement did introduce the Human Rights Act 1998 which simply put the ECHR into the hands our domestic courts, instead of having to pursue Human Rights cases in Strasbourg.