Is it right that the House of Commons is the most powerful house?

Posted by: Zylorarchy

What I mean here, is that this House of Commons literally does have the power to force through legislation, even if the House of Lords rejects the Bill completely. Is this right?

Vote
3 Total Votes
1

Yes, the House of Commons is elected and represents the people. The House of Lords is unelected and does not.

Using the power granted under the Parliament Acts 1911 (and 1949), the House of Commons can, if the Lords refuse to accept the Bill, FORCE through acts. This is rare, very rare but can and does happen. Some examples include the 1949 Act above which ... enhanced this existing power of the Commons, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which changed the voting system for European Members of Parliament, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which lowered the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16 and probably most famously, the Hunting Act 2004, which banned hunting using dogs. All of these Acts were forced through by the Commons without the Lords' Consent. Typically this is justified due to the fact that the Commons IS elected by the Electorate, while the Lords is not. But also, is the Commons more in touch with reality than the Lords? Many of these forced Acts have certainly been welcomed by the public   more
2 votes
1 comment
2

No, both houses are chambers of Parliament and both should agree on legislation before it becomes legal.

While often criticised, the Lords does in fact, generally do a pretty good job. Many bills are revised, and errors corrected after going through the Lords. The Lords is most useful for introducing certain bills that are likely to be controversial, b... ut can then avoid sensitive part politics, e.g. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. While not elected, Lords are chosen by the Crown (government) to sit due to their good deeds and contribution towards the country. So the likes of experts typically sit in the Lords. And as suggested, the Lords, while made up of members of the three main parties, is generally much LESS about party politics and much more about doing actual good. And while parties do sit in the Lords, many independents (much more than in the Commons), also sit in the Lords. So think, should members of Parliament, who are often experts and have great knowledge, have their vote swept aside by the Commons   more
1 vote
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Jifpop09 says2014-04-30T04:44:17.4905990-05:00
So Zhar, it can be assumed your obviously against the house of windsor then?
Zylorarchy says2014-04-30T05:00:25.8137990-05:00
@Jifpop09, assuming "Zhar" is directed at me, no I am not against the Monarchy. I am fine with it and believe we should keep it. I AM against the Monarchy having power over Parliament however. It is right Parliament has supreme law making power, and not the Queen.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-30T05:04:28.8617990-05:00
I sense double standards. Oh well, at least you guys don't try to impose your stupid euro zone culture on us.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-30T05:06:36.3293990-05:00
Take a look at these fine links. http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-the-United-States-of-America-join-the-Commonwealth-realms/2/ http://royalistparty.us/
Jifpop09 says2014-04-30T05:06:56.5625990-05:00
Those are actually 2 links
Zylorarchy says2014-04-30T06:38:45.2076297-05:00
Double standards..? I have no issue with the Monarchy as long as it respects that Parliament is the supreme law maker in the UK. I assume you are American? If so, how could we possibly impose "eurozone culture" on you? Regardless, the UK is NOT part of the Eurozone. But it is a common misconception that the Queen is technically all powerful. She is not. It is illegal for the Queen to make any laws and if you search the Bill of Rights 1688, you can see how this establishes that Parliament is supreme over the Monarch, no matter what some people like to think.
Kreakin says2014-04-30T06:48:42.1373990-05:00
The Queen is the head of the Armed Forces, havn't you seen all the medals they wear? These are for the numerous campaigns globally that they have won. We are not even aware of most of them.. Numerous coup d'état, etc. They retain power over the forces and that at the end of the day is the ultimate decider if it comes to the crunch. The day to day stuff is left to the people. The House of Commons (Us) should work with the Lords (Them) to agree a sensible outcome.In theory the Commons should ideally be more powerful but they come up with some pretty stupid stuff sometimes but the Lords have their own interests also.
Zylorarchy says2014-04-30T06:58:26.2169990-05:00
@Kreakin, She is, but said army cannot be used (for whatever) reason without the consent of Parliament. Again, this is all in the Bill of Rights 1688/9 which really does establish that Parliament has greater power than the Queen. In legal terms at least, without the consent of Parliament, the Queen cannot: interfere with the law, interfere with taxation, enact retribution due to a petition, have a standing army, interfere with the peoples freedom to have arms for their own defence, interfere with Parliamentary elections, impede or question freedom of speech in Parliament, impose grants/promises/fines before conviction and use cruel and unusual punishments. So basically, she is mostly powerless in legal terms. She has little authority of this country and most was literally handed over to Parliament when the Bill of Rights was passed. Even Constitutional Convention (though not legally binding) restricts her powers further basically stating that her last legal powers are handed over to Parliament. Constitutional convention also states that she CANNOT refuse Royal Assent to any Bill.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-30T12:12:30.0954056-05:00
It is a double standard, barbaric, and not very democratic. You are making your head of state a privileged youth. You complain about the house of lords not being democratic, but then you defend the queen. A non voted office of your country. Us republics think your culture is silly and old fashioned, which gives us some tourist interest, but your queens still pretty much a waste of space, and not fit to be a part of a modern democratic nation.
Zylorarchy says2014-04-30T12:27:28.3242920-05:00
@Jifpop09, It is in no way barbaric by any means. And undemocratic? Indeed, but it has no actual impact upon the country for the Queen has no say in the laws of the land. The running of the country is purely down to Parliament, and as I have already said, the Bill of Rights 1688 strip the Queen of most of her authority and the Constitution strip her of her remaining theoretical power, which is now in reality, in Government hands. I defend her as she does virtually no harm to us, although she does cost money to keep, the tourism generated due to the Royal Family is substantial. And keeping the Queen is mainly due to historic reasons, just like Independence Day is celebrated in the US, for historical reasons. It is a history that we are proud of. I object to the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords because they actively participate in law making and are part of Parliament. They, unelected people, have a say in how the country is run and that is wrong in my opinion. As for what other Republics think, no offence; but just because other countries think it is "silly" and "old fashioned", does not mean we shall abolish the Monarchy.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-30T13:15:35.4942920-05:00
From my understanding, she has royal assent, power to choose a prime minister, royal preagotive, ect. Many people tell me "They'll never use those powers", and I find the response foolish. They shouldn't have them in the first place. The whole institution of monarchs is silly, and I'm sure your country would do much better under the republic movement. The queen tourism myth is also quite amusing. When you factor in all costs, she goes just a little bit over offsetting the cost. And while I understand why you might want her for cultural reasons, but the queen can still exist without making her head of state. What other countries have done, is install constitutional clauses, that will pay for the monarchs living, but the monarch has no formal ties to government. Why can't the UK just do that? One thing we know for sure though, is that several countries will leave the commonwealth at her passing. I think that would be the best time to move on.
Zylorarchy says2014-04-30T14:23:02.3526920-05:00
She does have Royal Assent, the power to choose a Prime Minister and Royal Prerogative. Royal Prerogative however includes mostly rather limited powers which the acceptance of, I admit, some pretty major powers. E.g. declaration of war, making treaties, calling Parliament etc. To address these points, she must, according to the constitution, give Royal Assent to every bill (there's one clause there). Constitutional convention also does cover the Monarch the selecting of the PM and Ministers. However constitutional convention are not actual laws, and can be broken. You may then wonder, well surely she can refuse to give Royal Assent? Yes, legally she can. But then laws cannot be made without the consent of Parliament, to do so is illegal. But that in turns mean Parliament does not have to rely purely on her to select Ministers, breaking a constitutional convention typically does not result in legal punishment. The Bill of Rights 1688/9 is the constitutional clause you are looking for. You seem to ignore this despite me mentioning it every time. The Bill of Rights of of extreme constitutional importance. It was the Act that established Parliamentary Sovereignty and therefore established that Parliament is supreme over all in the United Kingdom, including the Monarch. The Act specifically was brought in against the Monarch. It is the ultimate safeguard from the 'Head of State'. She CANNOT legally interfere with law making or other things (which I have previously mentioned). Later in the case of Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Company v Wauchope (1842), the Judiciary also stated that Parliament is Supreme and that an Act of Parliament CANNOT be questioned by anyone. The fact is, she is not all powerful, Parliament is. In fact, Parliament is technically not answerable to anyone under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and in theory, is far more powerful than the US Congress.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.