In modern politics and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government. A modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries; the term is similar to the idea of a senate, synod or congress, is used in countries that are current or former monarchies, a form of government with a monarch as the head. Some contexts restrict the use of the word parliament to parliamentary systems, although it is used to describe the legislature in some presidential systems where it is not in the official name. Parliaments included various kinds of deliberative and judicial assemblies, e.g. mediaeval parlements. The English term is derived from Anglo-Norman and dates to the 14th century, coming from the 11th century Old French parlement, from parler, meaning "to talk"; the meaning evolved over time referring to any discussion, conversation, or negotiation through various kinds of deliberative or judicial groups summoned by a monarch.
By the 15th century, in Britain, it had come to mean the legislature. Since ancient times, when societies were tribal, there were councils or a headman whose decisions were assessed by village elders; this is called tribalism. Some scholars suggest that in ancient Mesopotamia there was a primitive democratic government where the kings were assessed by council; the same has been said about ancient India, where some form of deliberative assemblies existed, therefore there was some form of democracy. However, these claims are not accepted by most scholars, who see these forms of government as oligarchies. Ancient Athens was the cradle of democracy; the Athenian assembly was the most important institution, every free male citizen could take part in the discussions. Slaves and women could not. However, Athenian democracy was not representative, but rather direct, therefore the ekklesia was different from the parliamentary system; the Roman Republic had legislative assemblies, who had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new statutes, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, the creation of alliances.
The Roman Senate controlled money and the details of foreign policy. Some Muslim scholars argue. However, others highlight what they consider fundamental differences between the shura system and the parliamentary system. Although there are documented councils held in 873, 1020, 1050 and 1063, there was no representation of commoners. What is considered to be the first parliament, the Cortes of León, was held in the Kingdom of León in 1188. According to the UNESCO, the Decreta of Leon of 1188 is the oldest documentary manifestation of the European parliamentary system. In addition, UNESCO granted the 1188 Cortes of Alfonso IX the title of "Memory of the World" and the city of Leon has been recognized as the "Cradle of Parliamentarism". After coming to power, King Alfonso IX, facing an attack by his two neighbors and Portugal, decided to summon the "Royal Curia"; this was a medieval organisation composed of aristocrats and bishops but because of the seriousness of the situation and the need to maximise political support, Alfonso IX took the decision to call the representatives of the urban middle class from the most important cities of the kingdom to the assembly.
León's Cortes dealt with matters like the right to private property, the inviolability of domicile, the right to appeal to justice opposite the King and the obligation of the King to consult the Cortes before entering a war. Prelates and commoners met separately in the three estates of the Cortes. In this meeting new laws were approved to protect commoners against the arbitrarities of nobles and the king; this important set of laws is known as the Carta Magna Leonesa. Following this event, new Cortes would appear in the other different territories that would make up Spain: Principality of Catalonia in 1192, the Kingdom of Castile in 1250, Kingdom of Aragon in 1274, Kingdom of Valencia in 1283 and Kingdom of Navarre in 1300. After the union of the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile under the Crown of Castile, their Cortes were united as well in 1258; the Castilian Cortes had representatives from Burgos, Toledo, León, Seville, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, Segovia, Ávila, Cuenca, Valladolid, Madrid and Granada.
The Cortes' assent was required to pass new taxes, could advise the king on other matters. The comunero rebels intended a stronger role for the Cortes, but were defeated by the forces of Habsburg Emperor Charles V in 1521; the Cortes maintained some power, though it became more of a consultative entity. However, by the time of King Philip II, Charles's son, the Castilian Cortes had come under functionally complete royal control, with its delegates dependent on the Crown for their income; the Cortes of the Crown of Aragon kingdoms retained their power to control the king's spending with regard to the finances of those kingdoms. But after the War of the Spanish Succession and the victory of another royal house – the Bourbons – and King Philip V, their Cortes were suppressed. Claims that Spain was united under the Catholic Monarchs in the late 15th century are belied by these facts.
A. V. Dicey
Albert Venn Dicey, KC, FBA cited as A. V. Dicey, was a British Whig jurist and constitutional theorist, he is most known as the author of Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. The principles it expounds are considered part of the uncodified British constitution, he became Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford and a leading constitutional scholar of his day. Dicey popularised the phrase "rule of law", his father was Thomas Edward Dicey, senior wrangler in 1811 and proprietor of the Northampton Mercury and Chairman of the Midland Railway. His elder brother was Edward James Stephen Dicey, he was a cousin of Leslie Stephen and James Fitzjames Stephen. Dicey was educated at King's College School in London and Balliol College, graduating with Firsts in classical moderations in 1856 and in literae humaniores in 1858. In 1860 he won a fellowship at Trinity College, which he forfeited upon his marriage in 1872, he was called to the bar by the Inner Temple in 1863, subscribed to the Jamaica Committee around 1865, was appointed to the Vinerian Chair of English Law at Oxford in 1882.
In his first major work, the seminal Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution he outlined the principles of parliamentary sovereignty for which he is most known. He argued that the British Parliament was "an sovereign legislature" with the "right to make or unmake any law". In the book, he defined the term "constitutional law" as including "all rules which directly or indirectly affect the distribution or the exercise of the sovereign power in the state", he understood that the freedom British subjects enjoyed was dependent on the sovereignty of Parliament, the impartiality of the courts free from governmental interference and the supremacy of the common law. In 1890, he took silk, he left Oxford and went on to become one of the first Professors of Law at the new London School of Economics. There he published in 1896 his Conflict of Laws. Upon his death in 1922, Harold Laski memorialized him as "the most considerable figure in English jurisprudence since Maitland." Dicey was receptive to Jeremy Bentham's brand of individualist liberalism and welcomed the extension of the franchise in 1867.
He was affiliated with the group known as the "University Liberals" who composed the Essays on Reform and was not ashamed to be labeled a Radical. Dicey held that "personal liberty is the basis of national welfare." He treated Parliamentary sovereignty as the central premise of the British constitution. Dicey became a Liberal Unionist and a vigorous opponent of Home Rule for Ireland and published and spoke against it extensively from 1886 until shortly before his death, advocating that no concessions be made to Irish nationalism in relation to the government of any part of Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, he was thus bitterly disillusioned by the Anglo-Irish Treaty agreement in 1921 that Southern Ireland should become a self-governing dominion, separate from the United Kingdom. Dicey was vehemently opposed to women's suffrage, proportional representation, to the notion that citizens have the right to ignore unjust laws. Dicey viewed the necessity of establishing a stable legal system as more important than the potential injustice that would occur from following unjust laws.
In spite of this, he did concede that there were circumstances in which it would be appropriate to resort to an armed rebellion but stated that such occasions are rare. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution A Leap in the Dark, or Our New Constitution A Treatise on the Rules for the Selection of the Parties to an Action England's Case against Home Rule The Privy Council: The Arnold Prize Essay Letters on unionist delusions A digest of the law of England with reference to the conflict of laws. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1917. Retrieved April 7, 2018 – via Internet Archive. Thoughts on the Union between England and Scotland "England in 1848"; the Quarterly Review. 234: 221–242. October 1920. J. W. F. Allison, ed.. The Oxford Edition of Dicey. Oxford: Oxford U. P. ISBN 9780199685820. Vol. 1 includes the first edition of Introduction, with the main addenda in editions. 2, The Comparative Study of Constitutions, provides unpublished lectures on comparative constitutional law, intended for a further book.
Cosgrove, Richard A.. The Rule of Law: Albert Venn Dicey, Victorian jurist. London: Macmillan. Ford, Trowbridge H.. Albert Venn Dicey: The Man and His Times. Chichester: Rose. Sheppard, Stephen M.. "Dicey, Albert Venn". In Hamowy, Ronald; the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pp. 123–34. Doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n77. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. Works by A. V. Dicey at Project Gutenberg Works by or about A. V. Dicey at Internet Archive Grave of Albert Venn Dicey and his wife Eleanor in St Sepulchre's Cemetery, with biography Chisholm, Hugh, ed.. "Dicey, Edward". Encyclopædia Britannica. VIII. Cambridge University Press. P. 178
International law is the set of rules regarded and accepted in relations between nations. It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations. International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is applicable to countries rather than to individual citizens. National law may become international law when treaties permit national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform to respective parts. National laws or constitutions may provide for the implementation or integration of international legal obligations. International law is consent-based governance, as there is no means of enforcement in a world dominated by sovereign states; this means that a state may choose to not abide by international law, to break its treaty. However, violations of customary international law and peremptory norms can lead to military action or other forms of coercion, such as diplomatic pressure or economic sanctions.
The current order of international law, the equality of sovereignty between nations, was formed through the conclusion of the "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648. Prior to 1648, on the basis of the purpose of war or the legitimacy of war, it sought to distinguish whether the war was a "just war" or not; this theory of power interruptions can be found in the writings of the Roman Cicero and the writings of St. Augustine. According to the theory of armistice, the nation that caused unwarranted war could not enjoy the right to obtain or conquer trophies that were legitimate at the time The 17th, 18th and 19th centuries saw the growth of the concept of the sovereign "nation-state", which consisted of a nation controlled by a centralised system of government; the concept of nationalism became important as people began to see themselves as citizens of a particular nation with a distinct national identity. Until the mid-19th century, relations between nation-states were dictated by treaty, agreements to behave in a certain way towards another state, unenforceable except by force, not binding except as matters of honor and faithfulness.
But treaties alone became toothless and wars became destructive, most markedly towards civilians, who decried their horrors, leading to calls for regulation of the acts of states in times of war. The modern study of international law starts in the early 19th century, but its origins go back at least to the 16th century, Alberico Gentili, Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius, the "fathers of international law." Several legal systems developed in Europe, including the codified systems of continental European states and English common law, based on decisions by judges and not by written codes. Other areas developed differing legal systems, with the Chinese legal tradition dating back more than four thousand years, although at the end of the 19th century, there was still no written code for civil proceedings. One of the first instruments of modern international law was the Lieber Code, passed in 1863 by the Congress of the United States, to govern the conduct of US forces during the United States Civil War and considered to be the first written recitation of the rules and articles of war, adhered to by all civilised nations, the precursor of international law.
This led to the first prosecution for war crimes—in the case of United States prisoners of war held in cruel and depraved conditions at Andersonville, Georgia, in which the Confederate commandant of that camp was tried and hanged, the only Confederate soldier to be punished by death in the aftermath of the entire Civil War. In the years that followed, other states subscribed to limitations of their conduct, numerous other treaties and bodies were created to regulate the conduct of states towards one another in terms of these treaties, but not limited to, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1899; because international law is a new area of law its development and propriety in applicable areas are subject to dispute. Under article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law has three principal sources: international treaties and general principles of law. In addition, judicial decisions and teachings may be applied as "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law", International treaty law comprises obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties.
Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary international law picked up momentum after the Second World War with the formation of the International Law Commission, under the aegis of the United Nations. Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by agreement through treaty. For states not party to such treaties, the work of the ILC may still be accepted as custom applying to those states. General principles of law are those recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of international law achieve the binding force of peremptory norms as to include all states with no permissible derogations.
Colombia v Perú I
Constitution of India
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. The document lays down the framework demarcating fundamental political code, procedures and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, the duties of citizens, it is the longest written constitution of any country on earth. B. R. Ambedkar, chairman of the drafting committee, is considered to be its chief architect, it imparts constitutional supremacy and was adopted by its people with a declaration in its preamble. Parliament cannot override the constitution, it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India on 26 November 1949 and became effective on 26 January 1950. The constitution replaced the Government of India Act, 1935 as the country's fundamental governing document, the Dominion of India became the Republic of India. To ensure constitutional autochthony, its framers repealed prior acts of the British parliament in Article 395. India celebrates its constitution on 26 January as Republic Day.
The constitution declares India a sovereign, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens justice and liberty, endeavours to promote fraternity. The original 1950 constitution is preserved in a helium-filled case at the Parliament House in New Delhi; the words "secular" and "socialist" were added to the preamble in 1976 during the emergency. Most of the Indian subcontinent was under British rule from 1857 to 1947. From 1947 to 1950, the same legislation continued to be implemented as India was a dominion of Britain for these three years, as each princely state was convinced by Sardar Patel and V. P. Menon to sign the articles of integration with India, the British government continued to be responsible for the external security of the country. Thus, the constitution of India repealed the Indian Independence Act 1947 and Government of India Act, 1935 when it became effective on 26 January 1950. India ceased to be a dominion of the British Crown and became a sovereign democratic republic with the constitution.
Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 60, 324, 366, 367, 379, 380, 388, 391, 392, 393, 394 of the constitution came into force on 26 November 1949, the remaining articles became effective on 26 January 1950. The constitution was drawn from a number of sources. Mindful of India's needs and conditions, its framers borrowed features of previous legislation such as the Government of India Act 1858, the Indian Councils Acts of 1861, 1892 and 1909, the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935, the Indian Independence Act 1947; the latter, which led to the creation of India and Pakistan, divided the former Constituent Assembly in two. Each new assembly had sovereign power to enact a new constitution for the separate states; the constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly, elected by elected members of the provincial assemblies. The 389-member assembly took three years to draft the constitution holding eleven sessions over a 165-day period. B. R. Ambedkar was a wise constitutional expert, he had studied the constitutions of about 60 countries.
Ambedkar is recognised as the "Father of the Constitution of India". In the constitution assembly, a member of the drafting committee, T. T. Krishnamachari said: "Mr. President, Sir, I am one of those in the House who have listened to Dr. Ambedkar carefully. I am aware of the amount of work and enthusiasm that he has brought to bear on the work of drafting this Constitution. At the same time, I do realise that that amount of attention, necessary for the purpose of drafting a constitution so important to us at this moment has not been given to it by the Drafting Committee; the House is aware that of the seven members nominated by you, one had resigned from the House and was replaced. One was not replaced. One was away in America and his place was not filled up and another person was engaged in State affairs, there was a void to that extent. One or two people were far away from Delhi and reasons of health did not permit them to attend. So it happened that the burden of drafting this constitution fell on Dr. Ambedkar and I have no doubt that we are grateful to him for having achieved this task in a manner, undoubtedly commendable."
B. R. Ambedkar, Sanjay Phakey, Jawaharlal Nehru, C. Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhbhai Patel, Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi, Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar, Sandipkumar Patel, Abul Kalam Azad, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Nalini Ranjan Ghosh, Balwantrai Mehta were key figures in the assembly, which had over 30 representatives of the scheduled classes. Frank Anthony represented the Anglo-Indian community, the Parsis were represented by H. P. Modi. Harendra Coomar Mookerjee, a Christian assembly vice-president, chaired the minorities committee and represented non-Anglo-Indian Christians. Ari Bahadur Gurung represented the Gorkha community. Judges, such as Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, Benegal Narsing Rau, K. M. Munshi and Ganesh Mavlankar were members of the assembly. Female members included Sarojini Naidu, Hansa Mehta, Durgabai Deshmukh, Amrit Kaur and Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit; the first, two-day president of the assembly was Sachchidananda Sinha. It met for the first time on 9 December 1946. Benegal Narsing Rau, a civil servant who became the first Indian judge in the International Court of Justice and was president of the United Nations Security Council, was appointed as the assembly's constitutional adviser in 1946.
Responsible for the constitution's general structure, Rau prepared its initial draft in February 1948. At 14 August 1947 meeting of the assemb
The Westminster system is a parliamentary system of government developed in the United Kingdom. This term comes from the Palace of the seat of the British Parliament; the system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is used, or was once used, in the national and subnational legislatures of most former British Empire colonies upon gaining responsible government, beginning with the first of the Canadian provinces in 1848 and the six Australian colonies between 1855 and 1890. However, some former colonies have since adopted either the presidential system or a hybrid system as their form of government; the Westminster system of government is contrasted with the presidential system that originated in the United States, or with the semi-presidential system, based on the government of France. A Westminster system of government may include some of the following features: A sovereign or head of state who functions as the nominal or legal and constitutional holder of executive power, holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties consist of performing ceremonial functions.
Examples include Queen Elizabeth II, the Governors-General in Commonwealth realms, or the presidents of many countries, state or provincial governors in federal systems. Exceptions to this are Ireland and Israel, whose presidents are de jure and de facto ceremonial, the latter possesses no reserve powers whatsoever. A head of government, known as the Prime Minister, Chief minister, First Minister or Chancellor. While the head of state appoints the head of government, constitutional convention suggests that a majority of elected Members of Parliament must support the person appointed. If more than half of elected parliamentarians belong to the same political party the parliamentary leader of that party is appointed. An exception to this was Israel, in which direct prime-ministerial elections were made in 1996, 1999 and 2001. An executive branch led by the head of government made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a cabinet adhering to the principle of cabinet collective responsibility.
An independent, non-partisan civil service which advises on, implements, decisions of those ministers. Civil servants hold permanent appointments and can expect merit-based selection processes and continuity of employment when governments change. A parliamentary opposition with an official Leader of the Opposition. A legislature bicameral, with at least one elected house – although unicameral systems exist. Exceptions to this include New Zealand, which changed in 1993 to use mixed-member proportional representation. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding supply", passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion. A parliament which can be dissolved and snap elections called at any time. Parliamentary privilege, which allows the legislature to discuss any issue it deems relevant, without fear of consequences stemming from defamatory statements or records thereof. Minutes of meetings known as Hansard, including an ability for the legislature to strike discussion from these minutes.
The ability of courts to address silence or ambiguity in the parliament's statutory law through the development of common law. Another parallel system of legal principles exists known as equity. Exceptions to this include India, Quebec in Canada, Scotland in the UK amongst others which mix common law with other legal systems. Most of the procedures of the Westminster system originated with the conventions and precedents of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which form a part of what is known as the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Unlike the uncodified British constitution, most countries that use the Westminster system have codified the system, at least in part, in a written constitution. However, uncodified conventions and precedents continue to play a significant role in most countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure: for example, some older constitutions using the Westminster system do not mention the existence of the cabinet or the prime minister, because these offices were taken for granted by the authors of these constitutions.
Sometimes these conventions, reserve powers, other influences collide in times of crisis and in such times the weaknesses of the unwritten aspects of the Westminster system, as well as the strengths of the Westminster system's flexibility, are put to the test. As an illustrative example, in the Australian constitutional crises of 1975 the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and replaced him with opposition leader Malcolm Fraser. Summary of the Typical Structure of The Westminster Model: Type: Bicameral Upper House Lower House Leadership of Parliament: Head of State: Monarch or Ceremonial President Head of Government: Prime Minister Premier/Chief Minister Other titles include, First Minister, Chief Exec
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union. It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas, decided by unanimity among member states; the Treaty was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the 25 member states of the European Union. It was ratified by 18 member states, which included referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg; however the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end. Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty; this contained many of the changes that were placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.
The drafting for European Constitution began in a call for a new debate on the future of Europe at the Laeken European Council in December 2001. A European Convention was founded shortly afterward, chaired by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and composed of two Members of Parliament of each Member State and applicant state, 16 MEPs, 2 members of the European Commission and a representative from each government, it met in public. Giscard d'Estaing proposed to draft a Constitution. Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission backed a draft text, called the'Penelope Project', which contained a deeper integration of the countries and a clearer institutional model. After protracted negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference during the Italian presidency, disputes arose over the proposed framework for qualified majority voting: the final text of the TCE was settled in June 2004 under the Irish presidency; the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed in Rome on 29 October 2004 by 53 senior political figures from the 25 member states of the European Union.
In most cases heads of state designated plenipotentiaries to sign the treaty, but some presidents signed on behalf of states which were republics. Most designated plenipotentiaries were foreign ministers. On 12 January 2005 the European Parliament voted a non-binding resolution in support of the Constitution by 500 votes in favour to 137 votes against, with 40 abstentions. Before an EU treaty can enter into force, it must be ratified by all member states. Ratification takes different forms in each country, depending on its traditions, constitutional arrangements and political processes. Most member states ratify EU treaties following parliamentary votes, while some — notably Ireland and Denmark — sometimes hold referendums; as a reaction to what was seen as the novel nature of the Constitution, many advocates and opponents of the Constitution argued that it should be subjected to referendums across the European Union. On 20 April 2004 British prime minister Tony Blair unexpectedly announced an intention to hold a referendum, a proposal which he had rejected.
A further seven member states announced or had announced that they would hold referendums on the Constitution, these being Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal. Spain was the first country to hold a referendum on the Constitution. On 20 February 2005, Spanish voters backed the treaty with 76% voting in favour to 24% against, on a turnout of 43%. On 29 May 2005 the French people rejected the Constitution by margin of 55% to 45% on a turnout of 69%. On 1 June, the Dutch rejected the constitution by a margin of 61% to 39% on a turnout of 62%. Notwithstanding the rejection in France and the Netherlands, Luxembourg held a referendum on 10 July 2005 approving the Constitution by 57% to 43%, it was the last referendum to be held on the Constitution as all of the other member states that had proposed to hold referendums cancelled them. After the French and Dutch referendum results European leaders decided to hold a "period of reflection" on what to do next; as part of this reflection period a "group of wise men" was set up to consider possible courses of action.
This group of high-level European politicians – former prime ministers and members of the European Commission – first met on 30 September 2006 in Rome. On 4 June 2007, this group, known as the Amato Group, presented its report, they proposed to establish a new Inter-Governmental Conference with a view to writing a new treaty which would rewrite the Maastricht Treaty, amend the Treaty of Rome and give the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union a binding status. The new treaty would be based on the first and fourth parts of the Constitution, the rest of the Constitution's changes being achieved through amendments to the Treaty of Rome. In the June 2007 European summit meeting, Member States agreed to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, which would remain in force, they agreed a detailed mandate for a new intergovernmental conference to negotiate a new treaty containing such amendments to the existing treaties. These negotiations were completed by the end of the year.
The new treaty, referred to as the Reform Treaty, became the Lisbon Treaty on its signing in Lisbon on 13 December 2007. Under the TCE, the Council of the European Union would have been formally renamed the "Council of Ministers"
Entick v Carrington
Entick v Carrington EWHC KB J98 is a leading case in English law and UK constitutional law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power. The case has been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is famous for the dictum of Lord Camden: "If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law." On 11 November 1762, the King's Chief Messenger, Nathan Carrington, three other King's messengers, James Watson, Thomas Ardran, Robert Blackmore, broke into the home of the Grub Street writer, John Entick in the parish of St Dunstan, Stepney "with force and arms". Over the course of four hours, they broke open locks and doors and searched all of the rooms before taking away 100 charts and 100 pamphlets, causing £2,000 of damage; the King's messengers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax, newly appointed Secretary of State for the Northern Department, "to make strict and diligent search for... the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly seditious papers intitled, The Monitor, or British Freeholder".
Entick sued the messengers for trespassing on his land. The trial took place in Westminster Hall presided over by Lord Camden, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Carrington and his colleagues claimed that they acted on Halifax's warrant, which gave them legal authority to search Entick's home. However, Camden held that Halifax had no right under statute or under precedent to issue such a warrant and therefore found in Entick's favour. In the most famous passage Camden stated: The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property; that right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing.
If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, the plaintiff must have judgment. Hence Lord Camden ruled, as became viewed as a general principle, that the state may do nothing but that, expressly authorised by law, while the individual may do anything but that, forbidden by law; the judgment established the limits of executive power in English law: the state may act lawfully only in a manner prescribed by statute or common law. It was part of the background to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was described by the Supreme Court of the United States as "a'great judgment','one of the landmarks of English liberty','one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution', a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment".
Cuddihy, William. Carmon. "A Man's House Was Not His Castle: Origins of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution". William and Mary Quarterly. Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture. 37: 372–400. Doi:10.2307/1923809. JSTOR 1923809