Differences Between Parliamentary Sovereignty And Constitutional Supremacy

Differences between Parliamentary sovereignty and Constitutional supremacy

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in comparative constitutional law. By giving unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament, it appears to rule out any comparison between the Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress or the Malaysian Constitution, whose powers are carefully limited by their respective constitutions. Parliamentary sovereignty is thus seen as a unique feature and a result of the unwritten constitution. If parliamentary sovereignty is to be a legal doctrine, it must rely on a list of powers that belong to parliament as an institution. These legal powers are organised in powers and disabilities and are thus both empowering and limiting. In other words, all legally organised parliaments have limited powers. The Westminster Parliament has constitutionally limited powers, very much like its American and Malaysian

As we all know, the constitutional supremacy is a written constitution. Hence, it is rigid. As for it is rigid, it requires a constitutional provision which specifically addressing on how to amend a law. It is under the Article 159 of the Federal Constitution. In a constitutional supremacy, parliament is not omnipotent. Its powers are constrained by the constitution. In most constitutional democracies, if a citizen believes that a certain law violates a certain provision in the constitution, she can file an action in a court of law. Courts have the power of judicial review on the constitutionality of legislation. If the court finds that the law does indeed violate the constitution, it can strike the law