Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.
Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament
add a comment |
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.
Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament
1
Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago
The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.
Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
What I mean by absolute power is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.
Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?
united-kingdom parliament
united-kingdom parliament
edited 12 hours ago
JJJ
6,54022457
6,54022457
asked 13 hours ago
BenBen
3,2701539
3,2701539
1
Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago
The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago
The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
1
1
Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago
Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago
The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.
These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.
Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.
Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.
The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.
add a comment |
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms
The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.
The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.
Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.
The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
7
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
1
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
2
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
1
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
3
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.
The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40542%2fdoes-parliament-hold-absolute-power-in-the-uk%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.
These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.
Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.
Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.
The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.
add a comment |
Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.
These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.
Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.
Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.
The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.
add a comment |
Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.
These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.
Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.
Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.
The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.
Parliament has one power. It can pass motions.
These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws. The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited. An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times. It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity. These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses. How that relates to "power" is more questionable.
Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi. Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.
Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote? Yes they have done this multiple times in the past. The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women. But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote. Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections. Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.
The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution. This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.
answered 8 hours ago
James KJames K
36.7k8107157
36.7k8107157
add a comment |
add a comment |
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms
The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.
The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.
Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.
The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
7
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
1
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
2
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
1
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
3
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms
The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.
The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.
Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.
The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
7
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
1
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
2
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
1
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
3
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms
The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.
The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.
Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.
The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually. In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms
The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.
The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.
Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.
The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
edited 13 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
FizzFizz
15k23796
15k23796
7
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
1
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
2
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
1
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
3
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
7
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
1
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
2
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
1
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
3
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
7
7
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
Given parliament could simply repeal the FTPA (presuming royal assent), I don't really think that's much of a check on their power.
– CoedRhyfelwr
13 hours ago
1
1
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
@CoedRhyfelwr: It's a good question what would happen if the HoC passed a law declaring themselves MPs for life (either implicitly or explicitly). But as with all such hypotheticals, given the lack of a written constitution, we can only speculate.
– Fizz
13 hours ago
2
2
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
I suppose my question revolves around disenfranchising their own electorate. In effect changing the rules of the game such that the electorate’s vote is diminished in some way, in future general elections. Presumably this is well within the power of the Parliament.
– Ben
13 hours ago
1
1
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
@Ben: do you mean like gerrymandering?
– Fizz
13 hours ago
3
3
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
@Ben Elections are indeed fundamentally controlled by legislation, along with bodies such as the Electoral commission, created by legislation. Indeed one of the current arguments against the ID trials being continued in the upcoming UK local elections is that it unfairly disenfranchises some voters.
– origimbo
13 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.
The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.
add a comment |
Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.
The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.
add a comment |
Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.
The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.
Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to which the UK is a party state. This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.
The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period. As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.
answered 12 hours ago
origimboorigimbo
13.8k23355
13.8k23355
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40542%2fdoes-parliament-hold-absolute-power-in-the-uk%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Why stop at parliament? Even if we imagine a written constitution that specifies it can only be amended by a supermajority at a plebiscite, we could still ask: "could the People in theory decide to rewrite the constitution so it can never be amended again, thereby disenfranchising their children and children's children forever? Are there any checks on that?"
– Henning Makholm
8 hours ago
The modified version of the question (with its only focus on "absolute power") seems to be largely a UK-duplicate of politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40334/…
– Fizz
4 hours ago