Kedaulatan Parlemen: Perbedaan antara revisi

Banyak negara yang memiliki kedaulatan legislatif, misalnya [[Britania Raya]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/|title=Parliamentary sovereignty|publisher=UK Parliament|accessdate=17 August 2014|archive-date=2014-07-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140708120814/http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/|dead-url=no}}</ref> [[Finlandia]],<ref name="refDOliver1">{{cite web|url=http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/04/02/dawn-oliver-parliamentary-sovereignty-in-comparative-perspective/|title=Parliamentary Sovereignty in Comparative Perspective|date=2 April 2013|publisher=UK Constitutional Law Association Blog|last1=Oliver|first1=Dawn|accessdate=17 August 2014|archive-date=2014-08-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085109/http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/04/02/dawn-oliver-parliamentary-sovereignty-in-comparative-perspective/|dead-url=no}}</ref> [[Belanda]], [[Selandia Baru]], [[Swedia]], [[Barbados]], [[Jamaika]], [[Papua Nugini]], dan [[Kepulauan Solomon]].

{{Quote|Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.|[[Albert Dicey|A.V. Dicey]] ''Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'' (1885)|text=Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.|sign=[[Albert Dicey|A.V. Dicey]] ''Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'' (1885)}}Selama abad ke-17 di Inggris, sebuah gagasan yang dikembangkan [[Parlemen Inggris|Parlemen]] (terdiri dari [[Dewan Bangsawan Britania Raya|House of Lords]] dan [[House of Commons]]) yang dibagi dalam kedaulatan Raja, didasarkan pada yang pengertian yang salah mengenai sejarah parlemen.<ref>Pocock, J.G.A The ''Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law'' [//en.wiki-indonesia.club/wiki/Cambridge_University_Press Cambridge University Press] (1987) pp234-235</ref> Hal itu tidak diubah sampai Penobatan Sumpah dalam Coronation Oath Act 1688 sebagai bagian dari [[Revolusi Agung]]. Di mana Parlemen yang diakui sebagai bagian dari struktur konstitusional, dengan undang-undang yang dianggap berasal dari Parlemen dan bukan hanya dari Raja.<ref>Harris, Tim ''Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy 1685–1720'' [//en.wiki-indonesia.club/wiki/Allen_Lane Allen Lane] (2006) p349</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/billofrights/|title=The Convention and Bill of Rights|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=2 November 2014|archive-date=2014-03-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319134355/http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/billofrights/|dead-url=no}}</ref> The [[Undang-Undang Hak Asasi 1689|Bill of Rights 1689]] dan Claim of RIght Act 1689 yang diloloskan tahun berikutnya yang menegaskan hak-hak tertentu dari Parlemen Inggris (yang pada waktu itu termasuk Wales) dan Skotlandia dan membatasi kekuasaan [[Penguasa monarki|raja]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution|title=Britain's unwritten constitution|publisher=British Library|access-date=27 November 2015|quote=The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown following the forcible replacement of King James II (r.1685–88) by William III (r.1689–1702) and Mary (r.1689–94) in the Glorious Revolution (1688).|archive-date=2015-12-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208232341/http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html|title=Constitutionalism: America & Beyond|publisher=Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State|access-date=30 October 2014|quote=The earliest, and perhaps greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th, and succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons. What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea that the king is subject to law but the establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended upon the consent of citizen subjects.... However, as can be seen through provisions in the [[1689 Bill of Rights]], the [[English Revolution]] was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense) but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The "rights of man" enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the boundaries of England, notably in the [[American Declaration of Independence]] of 1776 and in the [[French Declaration of the Rights of Man]] in 1789.|archive-date=2014-10-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html|dead-url=yes}}</ref> Selain itu, pada tahun 1698 parlemen menciptakan Daftar Sipil, sebuah pengaturan keuangan yang membuat raja bergantung pada parlemen untuk pemasukkan.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/financialrevolution/|title=The Financial Revolution|publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom|access-date=14 March 2015|archive-date=2022-11-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221129045748/https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/financialrevolution/|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/making_history_rise.htm|title=Rise of Parliament|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=2010-08-22|archive-date=2018-08-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817084312/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/rise_parliament/making_history_rise.htm|dead-url=no}}</ref>

Beberapa ahli telah menyarankan bahwa Akta Persatuan England dan Skotlandia Tahun1707 membatasi kedaulatan parlemen untuk Skotlandia. Meskipun pengadilan Skotlandia belum secara terbuka mempertanyakan validitas dari suatu [[Undang-undang Parlemen|undang-Undang Parlemen]], beberapa hakim telah mengangkat kemungkinan. Dengan demikian, di ''MacCormick v. Lord Avocate'', Lord President (Lord Cooper) menyatakan bahwa "prinsip kedaulatan Parlemen tak terbatas adalah khas inggris prinsip yang tidak memiliki hubungan di Hukum tata negara Skotlandia", dan bahwa undang-undang bertentangan dengan Acts of Union tidak akan selalu dianggap sebagai konstitusi yang berlaku.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y7S6BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction|last=Loveland|first=Ian|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780198709039|location=2015|page=43-47}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=065TDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=Public Law|last=Doherty|first=Michael|date=2016|publisher=Rutledge|isbn=1317206657|pages=198-201}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tzScBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA119#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=Constitutional & Administrative Law|last=Barnett|first=Hilaire|date=2014|publisher=Rutledge|isbn=1317446224|pages=119-123}}</ref> Juga, dalam ''Gibson v Lord Advocate'',Lord Keith berhati-hati tentang bagaimana Pengadilan Skotlandia akan berurusan dengan sebuah Act (Undang-Undang), yang secara substansial akan mengubah atau meniadakan ketentuan penting dari 1707 undang-Undang, seperti penghapusan Pengadilan Sesi atau [[Gereja Skotlandia]] atau substitusi dari [[Hukum Inggris|hukum inggris]] untuk hukum Skotlandia.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/Carroll_C05.pdf|title=The legislative sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament|access-date=14 January 2017|archive-date=2018-11-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123201214/http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/Carroll_C05.pdf|dead-url=no}}</ref>

Supremasi hukum seperti dikutip dari sejarawan kontemporer hukum Amerika kontemporer sebagai alasan [[Hukum Inggris|hukum inggris]] tidak berkembang [[Proses adil|karena proses]] di akal Amerika.<ref>John V. Orth, ''[https://networks.h-net.org/node/16794/reviews/17011/huebner-orth-due-process-law-brief-history Due Process of Law: A Brief History] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211214014021/https://networks.h-net.org/node/16794/reviews/17011/huebner-orth-due-process-law-brief-history |date=2021-12-14 }}'' ([//en.wiki-indonesia.club/wiki/Lawrence,_Kansas Lawrence, KS]: [//en.wiki-indonesia.club/wiki/University_Press_of_Kansas University Press of Kansas], 2003), 28–31.</ref> Hal ini juga berpendapat untuk menjadi bagian integral dari cara di mana Inggris pendekatan hak-hak dan kebebasan berkembang.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O-8ff7yzzC8C&lpg=PA1959&pg=PA1958#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=The Changing Constitution|date=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199205110|editor-last=Jowell|editor-first=Jeffrey|edition=6th|pages=60–1|editor-last2=Oliver|editor-first2=Dawn}}</ref>

Doktrin supremasi parlemen, dalam Hukum inggris,<ref>Gordon, Michael. </ref> ditegakkan pada tahun 2005 oleh Lord Bingham dalam kasus '' R (Jackson) v Attorney General'':{{Quote|The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.<ref name="2005 UKHL 56 9Lord Bingham">[2005] UKHL 56 [9](Lord Bingham).</ref>|text=The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.<ref name="2005 UKHL 56 9Lord Bingham">[2005] UKHL 56 [9](Lord Bingham).</ref>}}Namun, ada perbedaan yang harus dibuat antara kedaulatan hukum dan kedaulatan politik. Parlemen tidak berdaulat secara politik, yang berarti bahwa jika Parlemen melewatkan UU yang tidak populer atau menindas undang-undang, maka hal itu tidak dapat diterapkan; misalnya, berbagai PNS yang melaksanakan undang-undang dalam departemen-departemen pemerintah yang dapat diandalkan untuk menggunakan setiap celah dan bahasa yang samar-samar yang ada di UU untuk ikut campur area lain dan peradilan<ref>Allan, T.R.S. "The Rule Of Law, Parliamentary Sovereignty, And A Ministerial Veto Over Judicial Decisions." </ref> sangat mungkin sengaja menafsirkan dan menciptakan preseden untuk mengatakan undang-undang dengan cara yang sama. Namun ini tidak berarti bahwa Parlemen tidak berdaulat secara hukum. Ia berpendapat bahwa meskipun demikian Parlemen secara hukum dapat melewati setiap undang-undang itu keinginan. Poin ini dibuat dengan jelas oleh Lord Reid di ''Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke'' [1969] 1 AC 645:{{Quote|It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid.'<ref name="ReferenceA">[1969] 1 A.C. 645, 723 (Lord Reid).</ref>|text=It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid.'<ref name="ReferenceA">[1969] 1 A.C. 645, 723 (Lord Reid).</ref>}}