Constitution of the UK Flashcards
James argues that the monarch still has significant power to change laws unilaterally. Which legal principle or case directly contradicts this idea?
A. Bill of Rights 1689
B. Glorious Revolution 1688
C. Case of Proclamations 1610
D. Act of Settlement 1700
C. Case of Proclamations 1610
Explanation:
The correct answer is C. Case of Proclamations 1610. This case established that the monarch cannot create or change laws without Parliament. It confirmed that the King has no prerogative except that which the law of the land allows, directly refuting any claim that the monarch has absolute legal power.
A student claims that Parliament only became sovereign in the 20th century. What historical event most directly undermines this claim?
A. Constitutional Reform Act 2005
B. Signing of Magna Carta in 1215
C. Glorious Revolution of 1688
D. Creation of the Supreme Court in 2009
C. Glorious Revolution of 1688
Explanation:
The correct answer is C. Glorious Revolution of 1688. This event shifted power permanently from the monarchy to Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689, which followed the Glorious Revolution, enshrined the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, making it clear that Parliament—not the Crown—was the supreme law-making authority.
A government minister insists that a current monarch could still legally refuse Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament. Which constitutional development makes this highly unlikely in practice?
A. The establishment of the Supreme Court
B. The conventions following the Bill of Rights 1689
C. The Royal Prerogative
D. The creation of the United Kingdom in 1801
B. The conventions following the Bill of Rights 1689
Explanation:
The correct answer is B. The conventions following the Bill of Rights 1689. These constitutional conventions mean that while Royal Assent is still technically required, the monarch must give it when advised to do so by ministers, making refusal in modern times politically impossible.
Sarah argues that because the UK has no single written constitutional document, it does not have a constitution at all. Which of the following best challenges her assertion?
A. The UK has a functioning constitution made up of statutes, common law, and conventions.
B. Constitutions must be written down to be legally effective.
C. Magna Carta alone acts as a complete codified constitution.
D. Only countries with written constitutions can limit government power effectively.
A. The UK has a functioning constitution made up of statutes, common law, and conventions
Explanation:
The correct answer is A. The UK has a functioning constitution made up of statutes, common law, and conventions. Although it is uncodified, the UK’s constitution is still valid and enforceable across multiple sources.
A law student claims that prerogative powers are dangerous because the monarch can still use them freely. How should their tutor respond?
A. Prerogative powers are completely abolished by Parliament.
B. The monarch now shares prerogative power equally with judges.
C. Prerogative powers are limited to foreign policy only.
D. Prerogative powers are now exercised by ministers under constitutional convention.
D. Prerogative powers are now exercised by ministers under constitutional convention
Explanation:
The correct answer is D. Prerogative powers are now exercised by ministers under constitutional convention. These powers still exist but are no longer used independently by the monarch — ministers use them in accordance with law and democratic oversight.
