Talk:Parliamentary sovereignty

Development of English Parliamentary Concept of Sovreignty
Wonder if anyone thinks this should be expanded. No mention is made of the Bill of Rights in England, which displaced the earlier mutings by the judiciary in Dr Bonham's Case (1610) and the Case of Proclamations (1611) that the primacy of statute law was not certain.

Echo_park00 10:13, 4 Apr 2006 (UTC)

Why does parliamentarism redirect here?
I believe there used to be a fairly okay article on parliamentarism years ago, but this is not it. There is no mention of variants such as positive versus negative parliamentarism anymore, for example. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.55.135 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of India
Does India really have Parliamentary Sovereignity? The only source given to substantiate this argument is from an article which says that some political parties came together and unanimously voiced yheir concern over erosion of Parliamentary Supremacy. This is merely a sentiment or an opinion, not the factual truth. India has a Constitutional Supremacy and the Judiciary has powers of Judicial Review. The Basic structure doctrine is one such example. The Indian Parliament cannot amend the Constitution (even if it has the needed supra majority) or pass laws if it violates the doctrine, which consists Judicial independence and certain Fundamental Rights, among other things, under its arms. It's very much clear that the Parliament doesn't have Parliamentary Sovereignity or Superiority over the Constitution or the Judiciary.

One very interesting thing that I saw in the sole 2013 source is that some political parties were demanding a Judicial Commission Act that would give the Executive and the Parliament a bigger say in the appointment of Judges. Consequentially the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act actually came into force in 2014 along with the 99th Constitutional amendment to serve the above mentioned purpose but got repealed in 2015 by the Supreme Court of India as it was held unconstitutional as it violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. This case is enough to prove the fact that Parliament doesn't rule supreme in India.

I am including my only source here :- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/les-avis/parliamentary-supermacy-and-judicial-review-indian-perspective/

I am not going to remove India from the list as I want to have a discussion and sharing of sources in this Talk Page before taking any such step. I am in favour of attaining a consensus in this matter and therefore will wait a reasonable time for replies. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Due to lack of any response I am going forward with the deletion of India from the list. Please reply to this thread for further discussion. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Parliamentary supremacy
Speak in English 197.215.21.93 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Canada
Canada does not seem to be an example of parliamentary sovereignty as the country has a constitution (The 1867 constitution and Charter of Rights) that explicitly defines the powers of what is provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction.

The notwithstanding clause’s applicability is also limited in scope, so the Parliament of Canada is not the supreme authority DankMemester117 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Due to lack of any response I am going forward with the deletion of Canada from the list. Please reply to this thread for further discussion. DankMemester117 (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because the sovereignty is limited, doesn't mean it can't be a part of this article. Almost all the other countries in this list also has the same issues. Canada fullfills the requirement of Manual of Style and deserves to stay. Although I have reveresed your edit, you're free to add or delete information with legitimate sources. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change before noticing that there was a section on the Talk page; would have come here first if I had noticed it.  However, the basic point is that Canada does not have parliamentary supremacy, the way countries like Britain or the Netherlands do.  In those countries, the courts have no power of judicial review over statutes passed by the Parliament.  In the UK, for example, the courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament.  That's not the case in Canada.  Any Act of the federal Parliament, or of a provincial legislature, is always subject to judicial review against the Constitution.  If an Act does not comply with the Constitution, it is of no force or effect.  The basic definition of parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty in this article is set out in the lead:  "It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies."  That is true for the UK and the others listed here.  It is not true for Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I understand that Canada doesn't have the extreme degree of parliamentary sovereignty practised in UK or Holland, but it does have some form of parliamentary sovereignity. The deleted portion mentions this very clearly..."Legislatures of Canadian provinces are sovereign within matters enumerated to them" and "Similarly, the federal Parliament is "sovereign in all matters delegated to it". The deleted portion also includes-
 * "In addition, although a law can be challenged and struck down by a court when found to be in violation of certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Parliament or provincial legislatures may invoke Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "notwithstanding clause") to allow the law to operate for up to five years, at which time it may either lapse or be renewed."
 * The presence of Sec 33 does grant parliament the de facto superiority you're looking for, albeit for a limited time. For me this part is enough to include Canada.
 * Secondly, this article is not only about the concept of parliamentary supremacy explicitly practised in UK but also the general idea of parliament having sovereignty. It's a complex legal and political subject and even though many nations will not have the extreme form of parliamentary sovereignity, they are still included in this article (Australia, Belgium, Italy, etc). Canada is in a grey area just like the other nations mentioned above, and although it mayn't perfectly fit the unsourced definition of parliamentary sovereignty given in the lead, it deserves to be atleast mentioned here. One can always make the Canadian portion better by enumerating the grey areas or by providing expert opinions of the opposite sides of the debate, but completely deleting Canada from here just bcoz it doen't fit with the UK model is untenable.
 * Thirdly, this deletion is violative of NPOV policies. All significant views must be allowed to expressed. For me the presence of Sec 33 is very much a significant view that deserves to be represented here.
 * Lastly, there can be a separate heading for such countries in the grey area like Canada and Australia. This will provide the much needed distinction between the countries practising the extreme form of this concept and others who can/do use it in special or limited cases. This compromise will be better for everyone involved as well as make the article better. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree with you. I'll take up your points in order.
 * First, the comments about legislatures being sovereign is immediately qualified by "within matters enumerated to them" / "sovereign in all matters delegated to it". Those qualifications are fundamental in understanding judicial review in Canada.  It is the Constitution that "enumerates" and "delegates" their powers, and  any act, federal or provincial, can be subject to judicial review to ensure that the legislator has stayed within its constitutionally permissible scope.  For examples, the federal Parliament cannot use its criminal law power to regulate industries civilly;  the provinces cannot use their taxing power to regulate banks, which are under federal jurisdiction;  and it's the courts that make that call, through judicial review.  That is a power that is completely absent in countries like the UK, where the courts cannot review statutes passed by the Parliament.  In Canada, courts can and do review federal and provincial laws under the division of powers.
 * With respect to s. 33, the same principle applies. The courts can review a legislator's reliance on s. 33 in a statute, to ensure it is consistent with the constitutional scope of s. 33.  If the statute exceeds the grant of power under s. 33, the courts can hold it unconstitutional, to the extent of the inconsistency.  Regardless of the source of legislative authority, laws in Canada are subject to judicial review.
 * Second, the definition of parliamentary sovereignty for the purposes of this article is given in the lead: "It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, not even a constitution) or by precedent."  That's what this article is about, and Canada does not meet that definition.  If you want to change the nature of what this article is about, or start a different one, let's discuss that.  But as this article is framed, no legislative body in Canada has "absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions", and "is not bound by written law".
 * Third, it's not a breach of NPOV to delete something that is not accurately included in the article. If there is an article about railways, and an editor adds a lengthy passage on highways, it's not a breach of NPOV to point out that highways don't belong in an article on railways.  Here, I deleted the passage on Canada because, as stated above, no legislative body in Canada has "absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions," and "is not bound by written law".  Canada therefore does not belong in this article, as framed.
 * Fourth, I disagree that Canada is in a grey area for this article as framed. Since no legislative body in Canada "has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions", and "is not bound by written law", which is the topic of this article, there is no grey area.  Rather, I think there is reason to ask the same question about Australia and some of the other countries:  should they be included here?  Since I don't know enough about those other countries, I'm not going to comment on whether they should be included, but I think there is a question mark about Australia, at least.
 * Finally, rather than an NPOV issue, I think there are WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY issues here. The deleted passage did not give a citation to a political science text or legal text, or any court decisions, that suggest that Canada is an example of parliamentary sovereignty.  Rather, the deleted portion pointed to different aspects of Canadian constitutional law, and drew the conclusion that Canada therefore is an example of parliamentary sovereignty.  The only source cited was s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which is a primary source. Section 91 was cited to support the quotation that provincial legislatures are "sovereign within matters enumerated to them."  The difficulty is that phrase is not found anywhere in s. 91, which is the provision outlining the powers of the federal Parliament, not the provincial legislatures. That is the only citation given in the entire section.  Interpreting legal provisions, which are a primary source, is a form of Original Research.   Similarly, there are no citations to secondary sources which discuss either the power to amend a provincial constitution, nor s. 33.  Lacking citations to reliable secondary sources, I do not think the deleted passage has made the case that Canada has parliamentary sovereignty.  I would take the position that before the deleted portion is restored, it needs to have citations to reliable sources that support that thesis.  It's easy to find such citations for the UK, in Halsburys and Dicey.  I don't think you will find such citations for Canada.  To the contrary, there are passages in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada which indicate that Canada has moved from parliamentary supremacy (to the extent we ever had it), to "constitutional supremacy."  I think a strong cite would be needed to support the position that Canada is an example of parliamentary sovereignty.  There is no such cite in the deleted portion.  It fails the requirement for reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)