The fundamental constitutional principles of the British constitution are:
-The rule of Law
-The separation of powers
In basic terms, the rule of law is the supremacy of law other humankind. As early as the 4th Before Christ (BC), Aristotle a great philosopher explained that the rule of law is to be preferred to that of any individual. The Massachusetts constitution (1780) refers to the government of laws not men. The rule of law is also often recognized as a means of ensuring (to ensure) the protection of individual rights against unfettered powers (unlimited government power). In the UK the general concept of the rule of law has become identified with Dicey's explanation of the doctrine in his Seminal text 1885
We have to detail what the 3 points of the fundamental constitutional principles are:
-No person is punishable in body or goods according to Dicey except for a distinct breach of the law. So the law cannot be secret, arbitrary or retrospective: there is absolute supremacy of regular law.
[...] These corps are making up the British armed forces and under the Army Act 1995 these members are subject to extra offences and additional legal codes of conduct and they are judged in special Courts. The concept that common law (case law, jurisprudence) provides protection of the individual rights in the BC remains true today, that's what the Conservative think, although added/supplementary protection has been provided by virtue of the Human rights 1998. In Dicey's view, the BC is based on two fundamental principles: the absolute sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of Law. [...]
[...] If we are a conservative there is no need for the writing of human rights. Example of a case which illustrates these 3 points: Entick/Carrington 1765. In this capital case, the 3 aspects of Dicey's rule of law are illustrated. Facts: the secretary of State's (at the time Charles II). It is a development between Parliament and Monarchy which is again in the ascendant. That's why Entick was prosecuted. Carrington, the secretary of State's prosecuted Entick which was accused with sedition: speaking, writing or acting with a view to causing/provoking violence or disobedience to the government. [...]
[...] This executive, through strict party discipline (the whip system: the chief whip seats on the cabinet) and the power of Government to control debates in the House of Commons, the Cabinet deprives the House of Commons of its true function which is to debate, to discuss legislation. The House of Common has been turned into a rubber stamp. Bagehot and a former Lord Chancellor lord Hailshan said Britain is an elective dictatorship and not the mother of democracy, not the mother of Parliament. [...]
[...] 2nd example: legislation which says that the government also has power to interfere with person's goods, property without any breach of the law. For example, if they want to create a motorway they can issue a compulsory purchase orders: (arrêtés d'expropriation). - The 2nd concept was that no person is above the law, however some are. There are a number of contradictions of these principles in the modern constitution (British constitutional law in the 20th century). First, the monarch in her or his personal capacity is not subject to the jurisdictions of the ordinary courts (the monarch can do no wrong). [...]
[...] English and Welsh courts have confirmed that the modern British constitution features this doctrine of government”. Lord Denning in a case known as Duport Steelsltd/Sirs 1980 stated that the BC was firmly based/grounded on the doctrine of government” with the result that Parliament “Parliament makes the laws ; the judiciary interprets them.” The extent of the doctrine of separation of powers in the modern new constitution. The 3 organs of the government are the executive, legislative and the judiciary do exist in the modern BC and to assert an extent there is separation of powers that is to say judicial independence in the BC especially since the constitutional reform Act 2005 and there is judicial refusal to intervene in legislative and executive matters. [...]
using our reader.