|
|
|
|
|
|
by presscast
2815 days ago
|
|
|
>Of course, if we did have an official written constitution, that would make it immediately clear what was and wasn't constitutional. That is why, for example, there is never any disagreement over such matters in the US :) I appreciate the joke (really!), but that's not what's perplexing, here. Even if there are disagreements in (e.g.) US constitutional matters, the reference documents and their order of succession is well-known. Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree? I've been living here for a year now... I really ought to know this stuff :/ |
|
|
Don't worry, people who have lived here all their lives often get this stuff wrong!
>Are there ever cases in the UK where two different canonical documents disagree?
IANAL, but as far as I know it generally doesn't happen.
Parliament is sovereign, so what it says (when it creates Acts of Parliament) goes. And newer Acts trump older Acts.
There are exceptions, though. For example:
- Common law, which is entirely created by case law. However statute does override this where it exists
- 'Constitutional Acts', which are certain Acts of Parliament that are held to be more foundational. For example the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972. These are exceptions to the "newer Act trumps older Act" doctrine and can only ever be explicitly repealed, modified or ignored.