Paperback : $126.00
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty has long been regarded as the most fundamental element of the British Constitution. It holds that Parliament has unlimited legislative authority, and that the courts have no authority to judge statutes invalid. This doctrine has now been criticized on historical and philosophical grounds and critics claim that it is a relatively recent invention of academic lawyers that superseded an earlier tradition in which Parliament's
authority was limited to common law. The critics also argue that it is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between statutory and common law, and is morally indefensible.
The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy responds to these criticisms. It first defines and clarifies the concept of legislative sovereignty and then describes the historical origins and the development of the doctrine from the thirteenth to the end of the nineteenth century. Professor Goldsworthy goes on to identify many different reasons why persuaded statesmen, lawyers, and political theorists have endorsed the doctrine. He discusses the ideas of a large
number of legal and political thinkers, including Fortescue, St German, Hooker, Coke, Bacon, Parker, Milton, Hobbes, Hale, Locke, Bolingbroke, Blackstone, and Burke. He shows that judges in Great Britain have
never had authority to invalidate statutes, and that the doctrine is much older than is generally realized. The book concludes by dealing with philosophical criticisms of the doctrine. Combining the insights of earlier thinkers with those of contemporary legal philosophers, it demonstrates that these criticisms are based on a defective understanding of the nature and foundations of law, and of the relationship between legislative authority and the common law. It argues
that the doctrine is morally defensible, and refutes the thesis that the judges have authority to modify or reject it.
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty has long been regarded as the most fundamental element of the British Constitution. It holds that Parliament has unlimited legislative authority, and that the courts have no authority to judge statutes invalid. This doctrine has now been criticized on historical and philosophical grounds and critics claim that it is a relatively recent invention of academic lawyers that superseded an earlier tradition in which Parliament's
authority was limited to common law. The critics also argue that it is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between statutory and common law, and is morally indefensible.
The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy responds to these criticisms. It first defines and clarifies the concept of legislative sovereignty and then describes the historical origins and the development of the doctrine from the thirteenth to the end of the nineteenth century. Professor Goldsworthy goes on to identify many different reasons why persuaded statesmen, lawyers, and political theorists have endorsed the doctrine. He discusses the ideas of a large
number of legal and political thinkers, including Fortescue, St German, Hooker, Coke, Bacon, Parker, Milton, Hobbes, Hale, Locke, Bolingbroke, Blackstone, and Burke. He shows that judges in Great Britain have
never had authority to invalidate statutes, and that the doctrine is much older than is generally realized. The book concludes by dealing with philosophical criticisms of the doctrine. Combining the insights of earlier thinkers with those of contemporary legal philosophers, it demonstrates that these criticisms are based on a defective understanding of the nature and foundations of law, and of the relationship between legislative authority and the common law. It argues
that the doctrine is morally defensible, and refutes the thesis that the judges have authority to modify or reject it.
1: Introduction
2: Defining Parliamentary Sovereignty
A. Parliament and Sovereignty Defined
B. Sovereignty and Higher Law
3: From Bracton to the Reformation
A. Medieval Kingship, Law and Politics
B. Parliament and its Authority
C. Parliament as a Law-maker
D. Parliament and the Courts
E. Parliament in Legal Theory
F. Parliament and the Church
4: The Sixteenth Century
A. The Authority of Parliament Extended
B. The Supremacy of Parliament Recognised
C. Two Theories of the Authority of Parliament
D. Royalist Theories
E. Parliamentarian Theories
F. Prelude to the Seventeenth Century
5: From James I to the Restoration
A. Political Theories in Early Stuart England
B. Royalist Theories of the Authority of Parliament
C. Parliamentarian Theories of the Authority of Parliament
D. Common Law Theories of the Authority of Parliament
E. Parliamentary Sovereignty Affirmed
F. The Interregnum
6: From the Restoration to the Revolution
A. Monarchist Ideologies
B. Whig Ideology
7: After the Revolution
A. Whig and Tory Consensus
B. The Union of England and Scotland
C. Legal Sovereignty, Popular Sovereignty, and the Right of
Resistance
D. Law-Making Power and Constitutional Principle
E. British Opinion During the American Crisis
F. Judicial Opinion and Legal Theory
G. American Revolutionary Constitutional Theory
H. The Reform Movement in Britain
8: The Nineteenth Century
9: Historical Conclusions
10: The Philosophical Foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty
A. Parliamentary Sovereignty and Legal Philosophy
B. Law as the Foundation of Law-making Authority
C. The Common Law as the Foundation of Law-making Authority
D. Legal Principles as the Foundation of Law-making Authority
E. The Practice of British Officials
F. Official Consensus as the Foundation of Law-making Authority
G. The Argument From Extreme Cases
H. Further Arguments
I. The Alleged Necessity of Judicially Enforceable Constitutional
Rights
Bibliography
Professor Jeffrey Goldsworthy is Professor of Law at Monash University, Australia
Professor Goldsworthy has written an important and valuable book, and historians of English political thought will find in it a broad and thoroughly informed account of the development of ideas on parliamentary sovereignty. History of Political Thought The historical arguement is persuasively made ... Geoffrey Marshall, TLS Jeffrey Goldsworthy of Monash University now looses a vigorous counter-blast on both the historical and philosophical fronts. Geoffrey Marshall, TLS Goldsworthy's use of secondary sources and his scholarship are admirable. The style may be allusive, but it is nonetheless very readable and his arguments in the chapter dedicated to the philosophical foundations of the doctrine are clearly written and accessible. Patrick Birkinshaw, THES. This valuable book will be found challenging by the critics of parliamentary sovereignty. In its mild and persuasive way, it leaves their arguments in shreds ... This book will prove impossible to ignore in that debate; Indeed, its arguments will dominate it. Christopher Forsyth, The Cambridge Law Journal 2000
 |
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
