LECTUTE I - THE ORIGINS OF THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN

LEGAL SYSTEMS
Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD

1.1. THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM

1.1.1. Origins of the English legal system
When embarking upon any attempt to speak about the origins of the English
legal system, the first thing that has to be clarified is the notion of English law.
The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In turn,
Great Britain includes England, Scotland and Wales. All of these countries had
different bodies of law and various legal traditions and customs which have coexisted or still co-exist. Only between England and Wales has a fusion of laws
taken place, so the notions of English law and the English legal system
cover the law and legal system in application in England and Wales.
English law is made up of written laws, called statutes or Acts of Parliament
and, mainly, of a huge amount of case-law, generally referred to as common
law, even if it includes both common law and equity. The statutes assume the
existence of common law. Statutes can be considered only the addenda and the
errata of common law. If all statues were repealed, there would still be a system
of law, although incomplete; but if common law were suppressed, the most
important relations of life would not be provided for. (For instance, no statue
provides that a man must perform his contracts or pay his debts, or pay damages
for trespass, as the remedies for these matters derive from case law.)
1.1.2. Sources of law
1.1.2.1. COMMON LAW
What is common law? The phrase can have several meanings, depending on the
context and the level of accuracy. It can be understood as being opposed to, or
different from other types of law:
Common law as unified law versus local law and customs
Common law as case law versus Statute law or legislation
Common law as a branch of case law versus equity

 Common law as a pragmatic system implying an inductive approach,

versus Roman law seen as a theoretical and codified law implying a
deductive approach
Common law as English law or a legal system in use in Anglo-Saxon
countries, versus foreign law
Common law did not exist at the time of the Norman Conquest. Before 1066,
Anglo-Saxon law consisted in local customs applied by assemblies of free men,
called county courts. Before William I conquered England, the country was
socially atomized. There were local laws and institutions, which often reflected
the customs and traditions of previous invading cultures, such as the Angles,
Saxons, Jutes, Danes, etc. For instance, in Kent, the English region settled by the
Jutes, the custom of intestate succession (succession without a will) dictated
that the land was to be divided equally amongst the sons, whereas elsewhere the
land would be assigned to the eldest son. What is surprising is the fact that this
Kentish custom survived as an anomaly of the law of intestate succession until
the 1025 reforms. Yet, the Norman Conquest changed very little in terms of the
local administration of local laws and customs. What the Norman Conquest
brought new was the development of a legal principle, namely that tenure of
land implied jurisdiction. In this way the feudal lords created their own feudal
courts, presiding over the administration of their lands and those who worked
then. These feudal courts were called baronial or manorial courts. By virtue of
the hierarchical organization of the feudal society, courts were also subject to a
hierarchy. What did that mean in practice? Well, it meant that the highest court
was the Kings court because the King, as the owner of the land, was the one
who gave land directly to the highest nobles of the realm called Tenants in
Chief. In turn, the Tenants in chief gave land to the lower lords, so the Kings
court had jurisdiction over the Tenants in Chief, while the tenants in Chief had
jurisdiction over the other feudal lords. But these courts, too, applied local
customary law. Parallel to the feudal courts, ecclesiastical courts were also
created, where cases were settled by canon law, namely religious law common
to all Christendom.
After the Norman Conquest, English kings wanted to unify and centralize the
administration of justice. Local courts applying local laws and customs were
replaced by Royal Courts which applied the same laws throughout the country.
Williams successors managed to make the system more efficient by creating a
more centralized and specialized form of government. This was achieved in two
ways: (i) by delegating the royal judicative power to itinerant justices, organized
in circuits, who would travel around the country holding sittings (Assizes) to
hear and settle cases to be tried in the county towns and enforce the kings
rights. The first of these circuits were designed to raise royal revenue by
2

enforcing the financial rights of the crown and by causing justice to be done,
the more so as forfeitures, fines and amercements became an important source
of royal revenue; (ii) three static royal courts of justice (Curia Regis) were
created, located at Westminster. These were the Court of the Exchequer,
specialized in the questions of royal finance (it is absolutely clear now why the
British minister of finance is called the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the Court
of Common Pleas which had a wide first instance jurisdiction in ordinary
litigation among subjects and the Court of Kings Bench which had an appellate
and supervisory jurisdiction over all royal justice, except that within the
jurisdiction of the Exchequer. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the royal court of
justice had limited jurisdiction, as disputes were normally brought before the
feudal courts or the ecclesiastical courts. The Kings court only heard cases in
exceptional circumstances, it was a court for important personalities and
important disputes (eg. when the peace of the kingdom was threatened). Later
on, the same judges sat at Westminster as sat on the Assizes, so there was a high
degree of uniformity in the decisions made in the static and itinerant courts. The
jurisdiction of these courts was extended until it became common to the whole
kingdom. Therefore, the law created by this jurisdiction came to be known as
common law (common to the whole of England). This law, common to all the
kingdom, was based on the writ system, namely when a plaintiff wanted to take
legal action against someone who had done him some wrong (for instance, had
taken his land), he had to obtain a writ, that is a written document relevant to his
claim. A writ can be defined as a legal document which begins a legal action.
However, the writ system was very rigid, as the litigant had to find the writ
fitting his claim exactly, otherwise there was no recourse. Moreover, the only
legal remedy known to common law was damages (monetary compensation),
which was not always adequate. The writ system both defined and limited the
exercise of judicial power by the royal courts. Writs were issued in the name of
the king by his chancellor and commanded that a particular proceeding be
commenced. These various particular proceedings became collectively known as
the forms of action. Each claim had to fit an established form of action so that
the appropriate writ could be issued and the appropriate proceeding could be
initiated.
Thus, given its origins, common law can be defined as the general law
contained in decided cases, as opposed to Acts of Parliament. It is that part of
the law of England formulated, developed and administered by the old common
law courts, based originally on the common customs and it is unwritten. It is the
body of customary law, resting upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports
of decided cases. It is the law administered by the common-law courts of
England since the Middle Ages. From this body of law has evolved the type of
legal system found also in the United States (except for Louisiana), Australia,
Canada (except for Quebec), Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New
3

Zealand, Pakistan, Tanzania, the Bahamas and Zambia. Common law is to be

distinguished from the law created by the enactment of the legislative bodies. It
comprises the body of principles and rules of action, relating to the government
and security of persons of property, which derives their authority solely from
customs or from the judgments and decrees issued by the courts. Common law
is also to be distinguished from ecclesiastical law, because it is the system of
jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. In this sense,
common law is based on the above-mentioned hierarchy of all the jurisdictions
and the principle of binding precedent, which in practice means that the
decision of a higher court is binding in a lower court, that is the decision must be
followed and in the course of a trial judges may refer to existing precedents.
Judges may also consider decisions given in lower courts, but they are not bound
to follow them. Nevertheless, a decision made by a court of equal or greater
status must be applied if it is to the point, that is relevant or pertinent. In other
words, during a trial the current case will be compared to other cases and it will
be distinguished from other cases referred to or it will be considered similar,
namely it will be argued that the rule at law reasoned and established in a
previous case is applicable and should be followed. Hence the term case law.
The precedent is the rule of law which the first instance judge relied on in
determining the outcome of the case.
Initially, to submit a claim to the royal courts, which were above local problems
and more impartial than the other courts, the plaintiff had to request the
Chancellor to deliver a writ by which the royal courts could be seized of the
matter. In the 12th and 13th centuries, writs were granted only for certain types of
cases, already listed. In 1227, for instance, there were only 56 writs on the lists,
in other words, only for certain types of cases, already listed, could the royal
courts be seized. It is also interesting to mention that the list was gradually
increased, but until the mid 19th century, the royal courts only heard cases
submitted to them on the basis of the writs created in the 13th century.
What is important to notice is that the royal courts tried to unify the different
local customs, although they heard cases coming from all parts of the country.
The common law thus created involved a very formalistic procedure, as it was
necessary that the case should correspond exactly to one on the list. After
obtaining a writ, the claimant had to follow a very rigid procedure which was
different for every writ. If there was only a slight procedural mistake the case
was dismissed or a nonsuit decision was issued. Nevertheless, those forms of
action were abolished in 1873-1875 by Acts of Parliament called Acts of
Judicature. These Acts established a uniform procedure for all ordinary actions.
But until this solution was found the procedure was so rigid that an alternative
solution to obtain justice had to be found, namely
equity.

1.1.2.1.1. Common law as case law

Case law refers to the decisions made by judges, applying legal principles to the
particular facts of the dispute before them. Judges tended to base their rulings on
previous decisions when the facts were similar. This rule of precedent
constitutes what is technically known as case law, but is often referred to by the
general public as common law. Case law plays an important role in areas where
there is insufficient legislation (land law, contract law, libel, etc). Common law
lawyers must be familiar with the past cases because the rules of law laid down
in these cases remain the law unless they have been changed. This means that
decisions made in old cases can still represent the law, by establishing a
precedent. The binding precedent is also known by the Latin term stare
decisis. A precedent can be binding or only persuasive. What is binding is the
point of law or ratio decidendi given in the holding of a judgment. The obiter
dicta or by the way opinions are only persuasive, that is influential.
Therefore, a practitioner of the law will always look to the reported decisions of
the courts, whether these are based on a precedent or on legislation, for even a
statute can be interpreted by the courts. In this way, case law ensures uniformity
and stability.
The term common law may be assigned a number of different other meanings,
as follows:
The whole law of England, including ecclesiastical, maritime and
mercantile law, as administered in England, as distinct from that of all
other countries
In French and German law, common law (droit commun) refers to the law
common to the whole area of the state as distinct from local or regional
customs.
The description of the general system of law within a national
jurisdiction. In this sense it is contrasted with the notion of civil law
jurisdiction, namely the system of law developed from Roman law.
1.1.2.2. EQUITY
Equity is a body of rules that evolved mainly in the 15 th and 16th centuries to
complete the common law system which had become insufficient and defective.
When the royal courts applying the common law could not be seized of a case or
could not provide an adequate remedy, it was possible to request the king, by
appealing to his conscience, to intervene as sovereign justiciar. The King would
delegate his powers to a Chancellor but neither of them intervened to create new
rules of law, they only intervened in the name of morality. The stringent
formality inherent to the writ system, especially the absence of a remedy order
other than the award of money damages, made exceptions necessary, but
5

granting exceptions is the royal prerogative. The king, and later the chancellor,
as the keeper of the kings conscience, granted exceptions in the interest of
justice in individual cases thus equity was born.
The office of Chancellor (more recently Lord Chancellor) has an ancient history.
Initially, the cancellarius (from Latin cancellus which meant a bar) was an
usher who served at the bar of a Roman court. Later an, a more illustrious form
of this was to be found in the court of Charlemagne and was transported to
England by the time of Edward the Confessor, where he became the Kings
right-hand man and the most powerful official in the realm. The Lord Chancellor
headed the royal secretariat (called the Chancery) and was responsible for the
use and custody of the Great Seal of the Realm. He was also closely associated
with the administration of justice, being an important member of the Kings
Council whose duty was to consider and adjudicate upon petitions addressed to
the Council by subjects who sought justice from it as the body most close to the
king. Petitions might be presented for a variety of reasons, but mostly by people
who had failed to obtain justice in the common law courts.
In every day language, equity means natural justice, but this definition does not
cover the meaning acquired by this concept. As already stated, equity was
inspired by ideas of natural justice, but nowadays it is a particular branch of
English law, it is part of the law of England. The word equity is derived from
the Latin aequitas meaning leveling.
What about the origins of equity? As stated above, in the Middle Ages the courts
of common law failed to give redress in certain types of cases where redress was
necessary, so the disappointed parties (litigants) petitioned the King, as the King
was the fountain of justice for extraordinary relief. Through his Chancellor, in
the 15th century, the King set up a special court, the Court of Chancery, to deal
with these petitions. Litigants who had not obtained satisfaction in common law
courts because of the rigidity and the inadequacy of the writ system often turned
to the Chancellor, who would grant equity in the Court of Chancery. Equity was
based neither on pre-existing rights nor on heavy procedure as was the case in
common law, but on the natural, or Christian sense of justice. Equitable
remedies were at the discretion of judges, who, being ecclesiasts, were more or
less influenced by Roman law or Canon law. Equity became another source of
law, a complement to common law. The rules applied by the Court of Chancery
turned into law and became part of the law of the land. Failure to obtain justice
was mainly due to three causes: (i) the common law court was in some way
defective, that is lacked the necessary legal solution to a case, (ii) the only
remedy that common law courts could usually supply was the award of
damages, (iii) even if the law was adequate to solve a case, it was not always
possible to obtain justice in a common law court due to the greatness of one of
the parties. Therefore, only the Chancellor, who was one of the chief royal
officials, could remedy these defects. As he was closely associated with the

King, the Chancellor was bound by neither the rules nor the procedures of the
common law courts.
Initially, equity jurisdiction was exercised sparingly, because equity competed
with and corrected the jurisprudence of the common law courts, so the judges of
the royal courts were critical. They underlined the lack of predictable standards
and belittled those that existed. However, in time, standards and rules did
develop. The Court of Chancery, established by the Chancellor for the
administration of equity, dealt primarily with specific, defined cases and granted
particular types of relief. Nevertheless, the initial mechanism for relief in
individual cases in the interest of justice grew into a separate system with its
own jurisdiction, jurisprudence and remedies.
Equity has a number of specific features, which are still true today. In the first
place, it provides equitable remedies, such as: (i) an injunction, that is an order
not to do something harmful (for example, today an injunction could establish
an obligation not to dump dangerous chemicals into a river), (ii) the rescission of
a contract, when the contract does not express the will of the parties, (iii) decree
of specific performance, to oblige a party to fulfill his obligations under a
contract, (iv) reduction of penalties, when the strict application of common law
would cause obvious injustice. Secondly, equity also covers the Law of Trust,
which is a specific feature of Anglo-Saxon property law. A trust consists of a
person known as the settlor, who requests that a property interest be held by
another person, known as the trustee for the benefit of a third party, called the
beneficiary. Contrary to the concept of property in Roman civil law, a trust
implies a distinction between legal and equitable ownership, with different
holders. The courts of equity recognized that the same piece of property could
represent two interests: a legal interest and an equitable interest. The person with
the legal interest has a legal title to the property which was the one recognized at
common law. The other person has an equitable interest and an equitable title
was recognized by the courts of equity, but not by the common law courts. This
splitting of interests can be illustrated where a trust is set up. As already stated, a
trust involves three parties, namely the settlor, the trustee and the beneficiary.
The settlor is the one who sets up the trust. He is the one who gives person A
property with the intention that A will hold it for the benefit of a specified third
person, B. A, called the trustee, has the legal title to the property and would be
the legal owner of that property. B, called the beneficiary, would have the
equitable title, as the trust has been set up for his benefit. An equitable title is
well protected by the law. However, the legal title usually prevails where there is
a conflict between legal and equitable interests if the legal title is sold to a
purchaser and bought in good faith. In common law jurisdictions, trusts are
widely used for the management of business, charities, universities and

museums, or to preserve the rights of minors or of wards of the court (persons

deprived of legal capacity). Trusts are also used as security for a particular loan.

1.1.2.2.1. Main applications of EQUITY

The most important branches of equity are the law of trusts and the law of
contracts. For instance, in the case of trespass, common law offered damages,
but did not provide a means to have the trespasser stop. The chancellor
intervened in equity and granted an injunction ordering the defendant to stop
infringing on anothers property. If the defendant did not obey, he was sent to
prison for contempt of court. In the case of a breach of contract, the only
remedy at common law was damages, but the aggrieved party was much more
interested in obtaining the actual performance of the contract. Therefore, the
Chancellor issued a decree of specific performance urging the execution of
the contract. The common law theory of consent covered only physical violence
and not moral coercion, so the Chancellor intervened against those who took
unfair advantage of their dominant position (guardians, confessors, etc) to obtain
a contract. And, as far as property matters were concerned, equity obliged
trustees to respect their agreement.
A plaintiff who wanted to obtain all the remedies he was entitled to have to bring
two successive actions one in damages before a common law court and
another one in chancery to obtain an equitable injunction or a decree of specific
performance. In such a case, if there was conflict between the rules of common
law and the rules of equity, equity came to prevail.
Equity and common law went on in parallel, the former complementing the
latter, until 1875, when the Act of Judicature of 1873 was applied. That
application resulted in the abolition of the old courts of common law and the
Court of Chancery. They were replaced by one Supreme Court of Judicature,
each branch of which had the power to administer both common law and
equity. What happened was a fusion of the administration of common law and
equity. The two systems themselves did not fuse, the rules of common law are
still distinct from the rules of equity, but both are now open to a plaintiff in one
action before the same court.
1.1.2.3. STATUTE LAW
Contrary to the general view, held by most people, statute law / Acts of
Parliament has (have) existed for 1000 years in the English legal system. The
first important wave of legislation was under Henry II (1154 1189). At that
time legislation was made by the King in Council, but sometimes even by a kind
8

of Parliament which consisted mainly of a meeting of nobles and clergy

summoned from their shires. In the 14th century, Parliamentary legislation
became more general. Initially, the Parliament contended itself with asking the
king to legislate, but later on the Parliament itself presented bills. It is in the
Tudor period that the modern procedure was established of giving three readings
to a bill before it could become law. Ever since the Tudor period, Parliament
became more and more powerful and the practice of law making by statute
increased. Nevertheless, statutes became an important source of law only in the
19th and 20th centuries. After World War II, with the intervention of the state in
the economy and the creation of the Welfare State, statute law proliferated. In
case of conflict with common law or equity, statute law prevails because no
court of law or any other body can question the validity of an Act of Parliament,
as the Parliament is sovereign.
In England the legislative body is the Parliament, composed of the House of
Commons and the House of Lords. The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty
means that the supreme power is vested in Parliament. Until recently, this
doctrine stated that only Parliament could make or revoke any law by statute,
although it could not bind future Parliaments. Whatever law Parliament has
passed in the form of an Act must be put into effect by the courts and the courts
cannot overrule legislation once passed. However, this doctrine has had to
undergo a certain modification because of Englands membership of the
European Union. The EU law prevails over the national law, which means that
the national courts of the member States are required to override national
legislation where it conflicts with EU law. This has extended the rights of
English courts with respect to judicial review, as the courts, may, for instance,
hold that certain provisions of an Act of Parliament are inoperative because they
are in breach of EU obligations.
When a statute is drawn up, the old common law usually forms the basis for the
statute, but the legislature takes the opportunity to modify and update the old
law. It is also common for whole areas of law to be put into statute form, for
example tax law. Statutes often adopt the old common law terminology, which
means that they are very difficult to understand for those with no knowledge of
common law.
Most modern statutes require much detailed work to implement them. These
details are not usually contained in the statute, so the relevant authorities
(ministries, local authorities, etc) make up the details and issue regulation in
application of the statute. This form of law is called delegated legislation or
secondary legislation. Acts of Parliament have sovereign force, and legislation
made under delegated power can be valid only if it conforms exactly to the
powers granted in the primary legislation. So, since 1972 there has existed a
9

joint committee of the two Houses of the British Parliament which examines
every piece of delegated legislation to check whether the respective piece of
legislation does not exceed the limits established by the statutory framework.
The committee issues an opinion as to the validity of that piece of legislation,
but only a court of law can declare the delegated/secondary legislation invalid.

1.1.2.3.1. The Magna Carta

This major piece of legislation was first enacted in 1215. King John was forced
to accept it under threat of civil war. It was the earliest attempt to limit the
powers of the monarch and define the extent of the rights and liberties of
subjects. The Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain
rights (mainly of his barons), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that
his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the
King's subjects, whether free or fettered most notably the writ of habeas
corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Magna Carta was
arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process
that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world.
The Magna Carta is supposed to be the first step towards democratic rule, since
it gave political power to the aristocracy and reduced the power of the King to
override the law. It did not give power to the ordinary people, but confirmed the
rights of the individual to own property and receive impartial justice. The Magna
Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional
documents, including the United States Constitution. The Magna Carta was the
first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the
barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It
embodied the idea of a law that is supreme over the King himself. The King
promised to refrain from imposing any feudal tax except following the consent
of the Common Council of the Realm. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of
Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were
under the law. The Magna Carta is normally understood to refer to a single
document, that of 1215. Various amended versions of the Magna Carta appeared
in subsequent years however, and it is the 1297 version which remains on the
statute books of England and Wales.
In 1297, the Magna Carta was re-enacted and it was confirmed by Edward I. The
re-enacted version can be considered as a declaration of certain fundamental
principles, such as :
1. no one shall lose his life and liberty except by lawful judgment of his
equals and by the law of the land
10

2. the king should not sell, deny or delay justice

3. punishment should be in relation to the seriousness of the crime
4. guarantees to the freedom of the English Church. etc.
For modern times, the most enduring legacy of Magna Carta is considered to be
the right of habeas corpus. Habeas Corpus is a Latin phrase meaning Thou
shalt have the body so as to bring it before a judge. The aim of habeas corpus is
to guarantee the old common law rights against arbitrary and wrongful
imprisonment. In 1679, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Act was passed. The
Habeas Corpus Act 1679 was passed by the Parliament of England during the
reign of King Charles II to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of
habeas corpus whereby persons unlawfully detained can be ordered to be
prosecuted before a court of law. Though amended, it remains on the statute
book to this day. The Act contains provisions ensuring that persons imprisoned
without legal cause, whether by the Crown or by private individuals should, on
obtaining a writ of habeas corpus, have their detention examined by a judge
within a set period of time.
1.1.2.4. CASE REPORTS
In a system where case law is so important there must be a complex system of
law reports. The most important decisions taken by the superior courts have to
be reported and published. Consequently, there has been law reporting of some
kind as early as the 13th century. There have been three main periods in the
history of law reporting, namely the period of the Year Books, the period of
private reporting and the modern period, the period of Law Reports. The Year
Books cover the period from 1283 to 1535 and are merely notes taken by
counsel or by students upon cases they considered interesting. Private reporting
started in the 16th century, when private practitioners began to compile reports of
cases intended for practical use; hence in the course of time they came to contain
the essential matters which practitioners required to know. That is to say, a
statement of the facts in issue, the general nature of the pleadings on either side,
a brief statement of the arguments of counsel and, above all, the judgment of the
court. The modern period of reporting began after 1865, when the General
Council of Law Reporting was set up. It is a body which issues a series of
authorized Law Reports, in the sense that the judges who decided the cases
reported in this way examined and, where necessary, amended the reports before
publication. In England, precedents are almost always contained in law reports,
and these reports are now rather standardized. Every report has three major
sections, as follows: (i) the material facts, namely the relevant facts of that
particular case; (ii) the ratio decidendi, namely the grounds for the decision, the
legal reasoning that has been applied to the facts of the case; (iii) the judgment,
which is based on the first two sections and in which the judge finds in favour of
11

the plaintiff or the defendant in civil cases or the state or the defendant (accused)
in criminal cases. For the purpose of the doctrine of binding precedent, section
(ii) is vital, as it is the section which forms the precedent of the case. Each case
is given a reference, the form of which depends upon whether the case is a
criminal case or a civil case. The reference is followed by the year the case was
heard and an abbreviation of the name of the series in which the case is reported,
as illustrated by the examples below:
1) For civil cases: Smith v White (1980) OBD 153
In example 1) Smith is the plaintiff, v is read and in British English (versus
in American English); White is the defendant; the case was heard in 1980 in the
Queens Bench Division and the report begins on page 153.
2) For criminal cases: R v Smith (1995) CC
In example 2) R means rex or regina (the Latin terms for king or queen) and it
stand for the Crown or the State; v is read against; Smith is the defendant (the
person accused of committing an offence); the trial took place in 1995 in the
Crown Court.
1.1.2.5. THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT
The starting point from which to explain the English doctrine of precedent is the
principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike. This principle is
enforced in the English law by the rule of stare decisis (Latin term which means
to observe the previous decisions, namely the precedent or that the decision
must stand) and its aim is to provide consistency and predictability in the
decision-making process of various courts. This rule is almost universally
applied in all jurisdictions throughout the world, but it has a specific coercive or
binding nature in the English system. Such binding nature comes from the rules
of practice applied by English judges, called rules of precedent. These rules
state that, to a large extent, English law is based on case-law. Case-law consists
of the rules and principles acted on by the judges in giving decisions when
trying a case. At the same time, the English system obliges a judge trying a new
case to look back to see how previous judges have dealt with previous cases
(precedents) involving similar facts. This is different from the other
jurisdictions, where the rules and principles used by a judge to give a decision in
a past case are regarded as material the new, current judge may take into
consideration, but he is not bound to do it. Therefore, in the English system, a
judges decision in a particular case constitutes a precedent. The standing of
the rules of precedent depends on the status of the court which decided the case.
12

The decisions of the House of Lords are treated with the greatest respect,
whereas the decision of a county court judge has normally limited effect. This
approach has developed into a system under which precedents of the superior
courts, if relevant to the facts of the case, are binding on lower courts.
The judgment given by a court may fall into two parts: the ratio decidendi
(Latin expression meaning the reason for the decision) and the obiter dictum
(Latin expression meaning something said by the way). The ratio decidendi
always applies to the precise facts of the case and is binding. The obiter dictum
is where a judge speculates on what might have happened if the facts had been
different. The obiter dictum may also include a dissenting judgment in case
there is a judge in the panel of judges who disagrees with the majority decision.
This part of the judgment is persuasive rather than binding and so does not have
to be followed.
Courts can avoid following a binding precedent in a case by using a legal device
called distinguishing. Cases can be distinguished on either the facts or the
points of law. The facts or a fact in the new case must, in some important way,
be different from the facts or a fact of the previous case. The courts regard as a
material fact any important fact that makes the new case different from the
previous one. It is worth mentioning that the word material is used in legal
English to indicate that something is important or vital, such as material facts,
material evidence or material witness. For instance, in a case involving a joint
enterprise, where two people take part in a robbery, and in the course of the
robbery one of the people kills the person they are stealing from, the person who
does not actually do the killing may still be liable if he could foresee that this
action was likely to follow, because, if someone is armed with a gun, murder is
more foreseeable than if someone is armed with a stick.
But, it must not be imagined that the law is always discoverable by the simple
procedure of looking up and finding the right precedent. Life teaches us that
facts are infinitely various and by no means all cases are exactly covered by
previous decisions. On the contrary, the facts in question often resemble two or
more divergent decisions, that is why, in such circumstances, the courts have
freedom of choice in deciding which decision to follow. Further more, cases of
first impression arise even today, namely cases in which the facts bear no
resemblance to the facts in any previous case. In such a case, when the judge
rules, he legislates, in other words he establishes a precedent that future courts
must follow.
Judicial precedent provides stability and consistency to the legal system.
However, there are cases where its rigidity has led to injustices. It has been
argued that injustices should be rectified by Parliament through a change in the
law, but, at the same time, it has been said that it is up to the judges to use their

13

skills to avoid a precedent where it would, in the circumstances of the case, be

unjust to follow it.
1.1.2.5. THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
In England the ultimate legislator is the Parliament because in the English
traditional constitutional theory Parliament is sovereign. This means that all
legislative power within the realm is vested in Parliament or it is derived from
the authority of Parliament, and it also means that there is no legal limit to the
power of Parliament. Parliament enacts legislation and also delegates legislative
power to other bodies or even individuals, but it may also, by ACT, remove
these powers as simply as it has conferred them. Thus, Parliament is sovereign
in matters of legislation enactment, but the courts also have an influence upon
the development of enacted law. How so? Well, in order to be applied, every
enactment, however it be promulgated, has to be interpreted by the courts, the
role of which as interpreters of law is generally recognized. The legislation
enacted by Parliament is also called primary legislation and it begins life as
drafts called Bills. Once enacted by Parliament a Bill becomes an Act of
Parliament or a statute. A new Act is passed in order to update or amend existing
legislation, to legislate for new circumstances and enforce government policies,
to ensure compliance with international or EU law; to consolidate laws by
bringing together into one statute all the existing statutes on one topic, to codify
rules by bringing together all the case law and statutes on a particular subject
where the principles are established. Parliament can enact any law it chooses or
repeal obsolete laws which are no longer relevant and the courts must enforce it.
The exception to this is EU law.
A Bill can be developed in several ways. The government may initiate a
consultative process by the publication of a Green Paper which sets out its
proposals at an early stage with the intention of collecting public response and
comment. Another possibility would be a White Paper published by the
government and containing more definite proposals. White Papers are often
published following consultation or discussion with pressure groups,
professional bodies or voluntary organizations. Sometimes, a Bill is not
preceded by a White or Green Paper, but it can be presented for public scrutiny,
that is public examination, in draft form, prior to being submitted to Parliament.
A Bill can be introduced by the Government, but it can also be introduced by an
MP. Both methods may result in Public Acts that govern the general public.
They may also result in Private Acts that affect particular individuals or
institutions.

14

1.2. THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM

1.2.1. Origins of the American legal system
American law is part of the common law tradition. The origins of the American
law can be traced back to the founding of the English colonies which were
governed by common law and equity. Statute law, which already existed in the
mother country, was also imported and applied in the colonies. Legal
methodology, legal language, and many legal concepts are English in origin, and
English legal history continues to be relevant today. For instance, after the
Norman Conquest (1066), the English king exercised judicial power through
counselors assembled in the Curia Regis, which travelled to different places to
perform its judicial tasks. This was also the practice of judges during Americas
Colonial Period. Judges rode the circuit on horseback, so circuit continues
to be used as a legal terms which designates the judicial district or area. For
example, the American federal courts of appeal are known by the number given
to the geographic circuit for which they are responsible, and many lower and
appellate courts of the individual states also carry a circuit designation in their
title.
As it is generally known, the English legal system is a combination of common
law and equity. The American colonies followed the English distinction between
proceedings at common law and proceedings in equity. Yet, the federal Congress
determined early that federal courts would have jurisdiction both in matters at
common law and in equity. In mid 19th century, New York had already taken
another step and merged the two forms of proceedings into a single form of civil
action. At the same time, a substitute was introduced for the formalism of the
writ system of the common law, namely the fact pleading, which required only
a simple and brief statement of facts which constitute a cause of action,
presented without useless repetition.
Besides the English influence, there are legal traditions which also had an
impact on the American legal system. For instance, Louisiana, admitted to the
Union in 1812, followed French legal tradition and codified its law according to
the French model. Its civil code contains the first and only codification of rules
of conflict of laws, pertaining to the private international law in the US. In some
states in the western US, there is a noticeable influence of Spanish-French law,
particularly with respect to matrimonial property rights. Yet, despite the few
exceptions just mentioned, legal methodology, legal language and the core
concepts and doctrines of private law remain unmistakably English in origin.
Later on, after the American War of Independence, in 1789, the Constitution
was ratified and the American system was established, including a federal
system of government, laws and courts, in other words the powers of the states
15

were officially separated into the executive branch, the legislative branch and
the judiciary branch.
The Constitution stipulates that this very document can be amended and also
each branch of power can intervene in the decisions made by the other two.
These interventions go by the set phrase of checks and balances. For instance,
Congress (the legislative branch of power) has powers over the President
whose appropriations of money they control (in the US an appropriation bill is
a bill which grants money to the government to be used in a way which has been
approved in an authorization bill). The Congress can also override the
Presidents veto, they can impeach him and finally remove him after
investigating the Presidents conduct. Congress also has power over the
Supreme Court (the judiciary branch of power) as they fix the size of the Court
and control its money appropriations. Congress impeach and remove judges,
confirm the nomination of judges and create inferior federal courts, as defined
by Article III of the Constitution. The Senate (the upper house of the American
Congress) is the one which confirms the appointment by the President of judges
and Cabinet members, therefore the appointment of the Attorney-General as
well.
The President can veto bills in Congress, he also appoints federal judges and
may grant pardon for federal crimes.
The Supreme Court interprets statutes and administrative regulations and
determine their constitutionality. This process is known under the name of
judicial review. In 1791, Congress ratified 10 amendments to the Constitution.
These amendments make up what is known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment X
to the Constitution gave birth to the State governments, the structure of which is
identical to the structure of the Federal government, namely state governments
have a written constitution, a state senate and a state assembly, a governor
assisted by a lieutenant governor and a state supreme court.
According to the provisions of the Constitution, powers were distributed
between the federal government and the state governments. Both types of
governments have the power of taxation, they also have concurrent powers
(joint, simultaneous) in the field of business regulations (for instance antitrust
laws, unfair competition, advertising and corporation securities).
By virtue of the principle of separation of powers, the three branches of
government have different responsibilities, as follows: (i) Congress legislates in
civil and criminal matters, (ii) the President and his administration see to the
implementation of the law and (iii) the federal courts make decisions on civil
and criminal cases.
The federal government controls foreign affairs and matters of general interest
(currency, the military, immigration, foreign and domestic trade, patents of
inventions, copyrights and bankruptcies). There are a number of agencies (also
called boards, authorities, commissions and departments) which control a lot of

16

other activities. These agencies make and enforce rules and have quasi-judicial
powers.
The fifty states enact legislation dealing with family relations and private
property, the creation of business organizations, the licensing of professionals as
well as public safety and morals.
The American legal system is based first on English common law, from which it
borrowed the rule of precedent, then on the Constitution together with its
statutes, rules and regulations drawn up by the government agencies. Thus, the
hallmark of the American system is this combination of civil law and common
law. In this system, substantive law covering both private matters (contracts,
torts, property, business organizations, family law, commercial law) and public
matters (constitutional, administrative, labor, tax and criminal law and also trade
regulation) as well as procedural law are founded both on the federal
constitution and the decisions of the US Supreme Court and the fifty states
constitutions together with the decisions of the fifty states courts. The American
system of justice has some important features, namely continuity, flexibility,
judicial review and judicial independence.
1.2.2. The Sources of American Law
1.2.2.1. FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTORY LAW
Initially, American law consisted mainly of case law, but since the end of the 19 th
century, statutory law has gained in importance. A lot of economic and social
legislation has been passed since then, displacing common law in these areas,
and also special administrative agencies have been set up to assume the
regulatory functions of the courts (for instance, the Federal Trade Commission).
Thus, the American legal system today is neither entirely a case law system nor
does it consist exclusively of statutes or of codification. It is in fact a mixed
system, but, despite the heavy influence of statutory law, in terms of basic
structure it is a case law-based system.
Statutory law exists on both state and federal levels. The Federal Constitution
defines the legislative competence of the federal government, reserves all other
competences to state legislative power and, in the Supremacy Clause provides
that federal law overrides state law. The Supremacy Clause defines federal law
and states that it consists of the Constitution, the authoritative constitutional case
law of the federal courts, federal statutes, regulations issued by the federal
administrative agencies in conformity with the statutes and federal treaties.
Federal treaties are international agreements to which the United States is a
party, but which have not been created in the form of treaties. State law (the
law of the individual states) consists of the constitution of the respective state,
17

its statutes, the regulations and ordinances of the constituent communities

(counties) and cities. There may be many similarities between the law of several
states, especially if they share the common law tradition, but it is important to
mention that the states are independent legal systems.
In a number of states there are reservations for Native Americans with
competence to regulate and to adjudicate their own private-law relationships, for
instance torts committed on the reservations and family law matters involving
the members of the tribe.
To negotiate the differences, uniform laws have been introduced in many areas
of law. The most successful laws are the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),
now in force in all states with the exception of some parts in Louisiana, and the
Uniform Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. However, adoption of a
uniform law is no guarantee of actual legal uniformity between and among the
participating states, as, on the one hand, a uniform law has to be adopted as a
statute by each state, and each state may introduce changes and amendments
departing from the version proposed for adoption, and, on the other hand, the
version of a uniform law adopted in each state will be interpreted and applied by
the courts in that that in divergent ways.
1.2.2.2 .AMERICAN LAW AS CASE LAW
The American legal system is primarily a case law system, just like its English
ancestor. It is a fundamental principle of a case law system that inferior courts
are bound by the legal precedents established by earlier decisions of their
superior courts. It is the doctrine of stare decisis. This doctrine mandates that
inferior state courts are bound, with respect to state law, by the decisions of their
superior courts, ultimately the State Supreme Court, and, with respect to the
federal law, by the decisions of the appropriate federal courts, ultimately the
United States Supreme Court. Federal courts are bound by decisions of the
superior federal courts with respect to questions of federal law, but must follow
the decisional law of the respective superior state courts regarding questions of
state law, as long as the latter neither violates nor has been superseded by federal
law.
The respective highest courts with jurisdiction in the matter, be they state or
federal, may depart from an earlier precedent they themselves have established.
The court may overrule the precedent and change the law, thereby creating new
law. Such a change in the law affects the case before the court as well as future
cases, but it does not have any retroactive effect, as cases decide in accordance
with the previous precedent continue to stand as final adjudications (res
18

judicata). The doctrine of res judicata holds that a matter decided finally
between the parties by the highest courts with jurisdiction in the matter may not
be put in issue again by the parties in this or any other court. Very rarely will a
lower court depart intentionally from an established procedure. It will do so only
when it expects the appellate court not to share its view that the precedent
should no longer be followed (as it is anachronistic) and therefore would render
a decision departing from the precedent, but, as a rule, the lower court will
adhere to the precedent and leave it to the appellate court to change the law
when the case reaches it upon appeal.
Developments of the law, adaptation to changing societal needs, result from the
interplay of legislation and adjudication in American law. The courts contribute
to the development with the establishment and subsequent adjustment of
decisional law. Legislation introduces new rules of law, changes earlier ones and
in the process displaces or changes decisional law. However, the interpretation
of statutes is up to the courts. Case law with respect to a particular statutory
norm binds lower courts with respect to subsequent cases, but it is not really the
statutory text, in the different meanings it may hold for different readers, but the
judicial interpretation that constitutes the binding applicable law for the next
case. Should the case law develop in a direction not intended by the legislature,
it can always pass new legislation to bring about a correction. Therefore, with
the American law what is important is not the newest applicable statute but how
the courts have interpreted and applied the norm, because only the judicial
interpretation and application is decisive in the end.

LEGAL ENGLISH WORKSHOP I

Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD
I. Answer the following questions:
1. What is English law made up of?
2. What is common law?
3. What are statutes?
4. What is a Tenant in Chief?
5. What is canon law?
6. How did Williams successors manage to centralize the administration of
justice?
7. What was the role of the circuit judges?
8. Which were the three Royal Courts (Curia Regis) created?
9. Describe the writ system.
19

10. Define the principle of binding judicial precedent. Refer to concepts such as
stare decisis, obiter dictum and ratio decidendi.
11. What is equity?
12. Who was the Lord Chancellor?
13. What types of remedies does equity provide?
14. Define a trust as a specific feature of Anglo-Saxon property law.
15. Which is the legislative body in England?
16. What does the principle of parliament sovereignty mean?
17. What does primary legislation stand for?
18. What does secondary (delegated) legislation stand for?
19. In 1215 a major piece of legislation was enacted, namely Magna Carta.
Enlarge upon it.
20. Which is the most enduring legal legacy of Magna Carta?
21. What are Law Reports?
22. The American Constitution was ratified in 1789, after the War of
Independence. Briefly describe the system of federal government established by
the Constitution.
23. Which are the sources of American law?
24. What does the Supremacy Clause mean?
25. What does the doctrine of res judicata stand for?
II. Decide whether the statements below are true or false. If they are false
explain why.
1. If all statutes were repealed, there would no longer be a system of law.
2. The custom of intestate succession (succession without a will) dictated
that the land was to be divided equally amongst the sons and was valid all
over the territory of the England prior to the Norman Conquest.
3. The Norman Conquest brought about the emergence of a new a legal
principle, namely that tenure of land implied jurisdiction, which resulted
in the creation, by the feudal lords, of their own feudal courts, presiding
over the administration of their lands and those who worked then.
4. The owner of the land was the King.
5. The three Royal Courts (Curia Regis) were itinerant courts.
6. The Court of Kings Bench which had an appellate and supervisory
jurisdiction over all royal justice.
7. Both in common law and in equity an action had to be commenced by a
writ.
8. Common law, defined as the general law contained in decided cases, is
different from Acts of Parliament.
9. The principle of binding precedent means that the decision of a higher
court must be followed in a lower court.

20

10.Failure to obtain justice in common law was due to the fact that the
common law court was in some way defective, that is lacked the
necessary legal solution to a case.
11.An injunction is a court order not to do something harmful.
12.A trust, as the concept of property in Roman civil law, implies there is no
distinction between legal and equitable ownership.
13.In case there is conflict between the rules of common law and the rules
of equity, common law prevails.
14.Only Parliament can make or revoke any law, although it cannot bind any
future parliaments.
15.The joint committee of the two Houses of the British Parliament can
examine every piece of delegated legislation to check whether the
respective piece of legislation does not exceed the limits established by
the statutory framework and, if the case may be, declares the
delegated/secondary legislation invalid.
16.The right of habeas corpus, mentioned by Magna Carta, is a way to
guarantee a persons rights against arbitrary and wrongful imprisonment.
17.The legal meaning of the word material in English refers to physical
evidence.
18.A Bill can only be developed by a consultative process following the
publication of a Green Paper.
19.Checks and balances means that each of the three branches of power can
intervene in the decisions made by the other two.
20.In the US a lower court will never depart from an established procedure.
III. Choose the right answer:
1. A writ can be defined as
a. a written document
b. a legal document which begins a legal action
c. a document granting damages
d. a document issued by the king
2. Ratio decidendi refers to:
a. judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion
b. previous decisions in dissimilar cases
c. the rule of law on which a courts decision is founded
d. material differences between cases
3. A contract is rescinded when
a. it does not express the will of the parties
b. it expresses the will of the parties
c. it expresses the will of the parties only partially
d. it expresses the will of a third party
21

4. The settlor of a trust

a. holds the legal title to the property
b. holds the equitable title to the property
c. holds a trust that was set up for hid benefit
d. gives the trustee the legal title to hold for the benefit of the beneficiary.
5. Nowadays, common law and equity are open
a. to a plaintiff in one action before the same court
b. to a plaintiff in two actions before the same court
c. to a plaintiff in two actions before two different courts
d. to a plaintiff in one action before two different courts
6. Acts of Parliament passed by the two Houses
a. can be overruled by the courts
b. cannot be overruled by the courts
c. cannot be put into effect by the courts
d. can be disregarded by the courts
7. Magna Carta
a. increased the power of the King to override the law
b. was the second attempt to define the extent of the rights and liberties of
subjects
c. embodied the idea of a law that is supreme over the King himself
d. gave power to the ordinary people
8. Section (ii) of a Law Report is vital because it contains
a. the relevant facts of that particular case
b. the judgment
c. a summary of the case
d. the grounds for the decision, the legal reasoning that has been applied to the
facts of the case
9. In a case of first impression the judge
a. establishes a precedent that future courts must follow
b. follows an already established precedent
c. must look for similar facts in previous cases
d. has the freedom of choice
10. In England all legislative power within the realm is vested in
a. the House of Lords
b. the House of Commons
c. the Crown
22

d. Parliament
11. Legislation enacted by Parliament begins life
a. as an Act of Parliament
b. as primary legislation
c. as a draft called Bill
d. as secondary legislation
12. The Supreme Court of the USA
a. tries first instance cases
b. is the constitutional court in the US
c. fixes its size
d. controls its own money appropriations
13. Both federal and state governments in the USA
a. have control over military matters
b. have control over immigration
c. have control over foreign affairs
d. have the power of taxation
14. The states that make up the USA are
a. dependant legal systems
b. interdependent legal systems
c. independent legal systems
d. intradependent legal systems
15. Reservations for Native Americans have competence to regulate and to
adjudicate over
a. public law
b. torts committed on the reservation
c. state matters
d. their own private-law relationships and family law matters involving the
members of the tribe
IV. Find the correct definition for each of the legal terms below:
Authority; court; govern; judge; law enforcement agency; lawyers; legal
action; legal system; legislation; rule; tribunal; judiciary
1.
2.
3.
4.

a body that is appointed to make a judgment or inquiry

a countrys body of judges
an act or acts passed by a law-making body
behaviour recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority
23

5. legal proceedings
6. on official body that has authority to try criminals, resolve disputes, or make
other legal decisions
7. an organization responsible for enforcing the laws, especially the police
8. a senior official in a court of law
9. the body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable
by established process
10.the control resulting from following a communitys system of rules
11.members of the legal profession
12.to rule a society and control the behaviour of its members
V. Fill in the blanks using the legal concepts below:
Authority; statutes, govern; judge; law enforcement agency; lawyers; legal
action; parliament; legislation; rule; tribunal; judiciary; legal system
Why do we have laws and ________ ? At one level, laws can be seen as a type
of ______ which is meant to _____ behaviour between people. We can find
these rules in nearly all social organizations, such as families and sports clubs.
Law, the body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions
and the _______ , is used to govern a society and to control the behaviour of its
members. In modern societies, a body with ______ , such as a ________ or the
legislature, makes the law; and a ________ , such as the police, makes sure it is
observed. In addition to enforcement, a body of expert ________ is needed to
apply the law. This is the role of the ________ , the body of _________ in a
particular country. Of course, _______ vary between countries, as well as the
basis for bringing a case before a court or _________ . One thing, however,
seems to be true all over the world starting a _______ is both expensive and
time-consuming.
VI. Match the legal terms (1-10) below with their correct definitions (A-J)
1. intestate succession ; 2. fine ; 3.the Assizes ; 4. Tenants in Chief ; 5. tenure
of land ; 6. forfeiture ; 7. an itinerant court ; 8. first instance jurisdiction ;
9. equity ; 10. stare decisis
A. the principles of binding precedent; B. ownership of property; C. a court that
moves from town to town; D. loss of property or of a right as a result of an
offence; E. the law concerning the transmission of a dead persons estate to the
beneficiaries when there is no will; F. Norman noblemen given their land
directly by the King; G. the power of a court to hear and judge a new case; H. a
system of law complementary to common law; I. a sum of money that an
offender must pay when ordered to do so by a legal authority as punishment for

24

the offence; J. sittings of court presided over by judges who would travel around
the country.
VII. Define the following legal concepts, provide their Romanian
equivalents; use the English terms in your own sentences:
injunction; fountain of justice; case law ; the Court of Chancery ; redress
VIII. Complete the definitions below:
1. ___________________ is law relating to acts committed against the law
which are punished by the state.
2. ___________________ is concerned with the constitution or government
of the state, or the relationship between state and citizens.
3. ___________________ is concerned with the rights and duties of
individuals, organizations, and associations (such as companies, trade
unions, charities), as opposed to criminal law.
4. _________________ is rules which determine how a case is administered
by the courts.
5. _________________ is common law and statute law used by the courts in
making decisions.
6. _________________ is the body which has the function of making law.
7. _________________ means legislation which begins life as drafts called
Bills.
8. _________________ is the right to check the legality and constitutionality
of secondary legislation.
9. _________________ means that the three branches of government have
different responsibilities.
10._________________ is the American minister of justice.
IX. Find the verbs that best complete the collocations below:
1. _______ Acts of Parliament; 2. _________ into a law (US); 3. ______new
statutes; 4. _________ existing legislation; 5. ___________ obsolete law; 6.
_______ the Presidents veto; 7. ________ the Royal Assent to turn a bill into a
legal enactment; 8. ______ a bill on the floor of a Parliament Chamber ;
9._______ powers to a lower body; 10. ________ the Presidents appropriations
of money.
X. Fill in the blanks in text bellow using the words/phrases in the list:
Private Members Bills; become law; submit to; introduce; re-present;
drafting of the legislation; reading; undertake;
debate; approve;

25

government Bills; enshrine the principle; Private Acts; scrutinise the

provisions; Public Acts; propose.
All Acts must be ________ both Houses of Parliament in the draft form of a
Bill. The legislative process involves three ________ in both Houses. At the first
reading, the title is read to the MPs; at the second reading, MPs _____ the
proposals. Then a standing committee will ___________ in the Bill and may
amend it to ensure that it _____________ debated and ___________ at the
second reading. This is reported back to the MPs. At the third reading, the Bill is
_________ . The Bill then goes through readings in the other house. The actual
_________ is __________ by Parliamentary Counsel. Finally, a Bill must
receive Royal Assent from the monarch before it ___________ on a specified
date. In fact, this stage has been reduced to a formal reading of the short title of
an Act in both Houses of parliament and is now a formality. _________ are
__________ by the Government; ____________ are _________ by MPs. Both
methods may result in _________ that govern the general public. ________
affect particular individuals or institutions.
XI. Pair the words (expressions) in List A with the words (expressions) in
List B and use them in sentences of your own:
LIST A: statute; case law; justice; damages; Court of Chancery; common law;
custom; Parliament; jurist; to construe; legal action; to promulgate;
parliamentary sovereignty
LIST B: constitutional law; to enact; to interpret; nooks of authority; usage;
specific performance; equity; litigation; enactment; legislator; Equity; law
reports
XII. Fill in the blanks in text bellow using the words/phrases in the list:
Uniform laws; federal; governor; Congress; pre-empt; state; jurisdiction;
void; codify; legislatures; throw out; statutes; federal legislative body;
competence.
In the USA, legislation takes place at two levels: the ______ and the ________ .
Federal legislation is superior to state legislation in its areas of _________ . It is
said to ______ state legislation where there is a conflict. Any state legislation
which conflicts with the federal laws is ______ . It should also be noted that the
US Supreme Court has the power to _______ any legislation not in keeping with
the US Constitution. The ____________ is the _________, consisting of the
House of Representatives and the Senate. State, headed by a _______, have their
own ________ (consisting of two house, except in Nebraska). States have
___________ over all matters not reserved to the federal competence. In the
USA, each state has its own set of ______ and most jurisdictions have now
26

________ a substantial part of their laws. ________ are also important. As each
state has its own law, the idea behind the development of uniform laws was to
cut down the differences in law between the various states of America. The most
successful uniform law is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
XIII. Give the Romanian equivalent of the following English legal terms:
aggrieved/prejudiced party; decree of specific performance; dispute; to
enact; to enforce the law; to impeach the president; judicial independence;
nonsuit; to prevail; tort; to vest in; delegated legislation.
XIV. Give the English equivalent of the following Romanian legal terms:
a face dreptate; jurisprudenta; proiect de lege financiara; a numi pe cineva
in functie; a propune pe cineva pentru o functie; hotarare judecatoreasca;
echilibrul puterilor (US); drept material; profesii liberale; proiect de lege;
lege votata de parlament; precedent cu forta juridica obligatorie.
XV. Translate into Romanian
A. The Senate approves a revised version of the bail-out plan
TWO days after the House had rejected the financial bail-out plan proposed by
the president and his treasury secretary, the Senate on Wednesday October
1st passed a revised version of the bill by the healthy margin of 74 votes to
25. John McCain and Barack Obama, the two candidates to be president,
both flew back to Washington, DC, to vote for the bill. Both spoke in its
favour, warning that a failure to act would invite calamity. Although
taxpayers should eventually recoup some or even all of the bills cost, both
candidates admitted that it might affect their fiscal plans. Mr. McCain
promised a freeze on all non-essential spending. Mr Obama said he might
delay some of his spending plans, but excluded his tax cuts, health-care
reform, infrastructure investment, alternative energy and education. That is,
all the main items on his wish-list bar expanding the armed forces. The bill
must now go back to the House, which was tentatively scheduled to vote
again on Friday. George Bush praised leaders in the Senate for making
"vital improvements to the package and urged the House to approve the
bill too. Having been burned once, House leaders are unlikely to call the
vote unless they are sure it will pass. The optimists among them note that
only 12 representatives need to change their minds. And the bill has been
sweetened to woo waverers. At the suggestion of both Mr. Obama and Mr.
McCain, the Senate made federal insurance for bank deposits more
generous to reassure nervous depositors. It will now cover the first

27

$250,000 anyone holds at any bank, up from the previous ceiling of

$100,000. The bill also includes $100 billion of assorted tax breaks and
handouts, though some lawmakers deem this irresponsible given the
swelling deficit. They also introduced limits on golden parachute
severance payments to disgraced Wall Street executives. Lawmakers had
various reasons for voting no the first time round. Several Democrats
said they did not trust Mr. Bush to spend the money wisely, and in any case
would have preferred it to be spent directly on homeowners struggling to
avoid foreclosure. Several Republicans wanted a cheaper package that gave
the government less power to meddle in the market. Some naysayers in the
House will stick to their guns, but some will surely decide that
circumstances demand a little flexibility in applying their principles. (The
Economist, 2008)
B. The fruits of office. The government drafts new laws to constrain the
magistracy
SILVIO BERLUSCONI is a man of perseverance. Two months after winning the
Italian election, he is starting to deal with the judicial system, and those working
in it, as robustly as when he was last in power, in 2001-06. During the campaign
he said prosecutors should undergo checks on their mental health. Now more
attacks on the magistracy and bespoke laws to protect himself and his business
interests seem to be priorities once again. On June 17th Renato Schifani, speaker
of the Senate, read a letter from Mr. Berlusconi backing an amendment proposed
by two senators that would stop for a year all trials for crimes committed before
June 2002, except for those the government deems most serious. Some critics
say this is unconstitutional, as it interferes with the requirement that trials should
be of reasonable duration and that due legal process must be observed. Mr.
Berlusconi is on trial in Milan accused of judicial corruption, along with a
British lawyer who helped to establish a secret offshore network of companies
for Mr. Berlusconi's business empire. Now nearing its end, this trial would be
among those to be halted. The amendment was passed by the Senate on June
18th. In his letter, Mr. Berlusconi claimed that many cases have been brought
against him by extreme left-wing magistrates for political ends. He has also told
Mr. Schifani that he wants legislation to suspend trials involving the holders of
Italy's highest offices of state. Mr. Schifani was behind a similar law in 2003 that
was later ruled unconstitutional. Mr. Berlusconi's intrusions into the criminaljustice system are also hitting the use of intercepts in investigations. On June
13th the government approved a bill to limit what magistrates can do and the
media may report. Cases for which eavesdropping would be banned include
fraudulent bankruptcy, market abuse and insider trading. The government claims
that cases involving organised crime and terrorism will not be affected. But
Armando Spataro, a prosecutor in Milan, says limits on the use of interception
28

devices could hinder investigations into terrorism. And Franco Roberti, an antiMafia magistrate in Naples, notes that many investigations into organised crime
begin with ordinary crimes such as extortion, loan-sharking and contraband, for
which listening-in will be forbidden. The bill would also gag the magistracy and
the press, threatening imprisonment to prosecutors who talk about cases and
journalists whose articles use information gleaned from investigations. A new
plan to get thousands of soldiers to act as policemen in such cities as Bologna,
Trieste and Venice appears to be a smokescreen for the government's real
approach to crime: hard on some offences, but soft on others. Behind the
smokescreen, Mr. Berlusconi is gathering the fruits of office again. (The
Economist, 2008)
XVI. Translate into English:
A. 1. Legile scrise reprezinta legislatia adoptata de parlament si promulgata de
suveran. 2. Principiile common law pot fi amendate sau abolite printr-o lege
adoptata de parlament. 3. Puterea legislativa nelimitata a parlamentului este un
principiu fundamental al dreptului constitutional britanic. 4. Ca urmare a
doctrinei suveranitatii parlamentului, in cazul unui conflict de drept, dreptul
scris prevaleaza atat fata de common law cat si fata de equity. 5. Equity a
atenuat rigiditatea specifica pentru common law si a facut astfel incat hotararile
justitiei sa nu fie nici nedrepte si nici contrare constiintei morale. 6. In SUA,
Congresul isi exercita controlul asupra presedintelui prin supravegherea legilor
de natura financiara, prin faptul ca ii poate contracara dreptul de veto, il poate
pune sub acuzare si demite. 7. Interventiile uneia dintre puterile statului in
hotararile celorlalte doua sunt cunoscute sub numele de echilibrul puterilor. 8.
Congresul are puterea de a adopta atat legi penale cat si legi civile (SUA). 9.
Presedintele si guvernul sau vegheaza la aplicarea legilor(SUA). 10. Curtea
Suprema americana stabileste constitutionalitatea legilor scrise si a legislatiei
secundare, adica are dreptul de a analiza legislatia din punct de vedere al
legalitatii si constitutioanlitatii. 11. Guvernul federal american controleaza
relatiile externe ca si problemele de interes general national. 12. Legislatia celor
50 de state se ocupa de dreptul familiei, al proprietatii private, de infiintarea de
firme, de organizarea si practicarea profesiilor liberale ca si de mentinerea
sigurantei publice si a normelor de moralitate publica. 13. Principalele trasaturi
ale sistemului juridic american sunt continuitatea, flexibilitatea, verificarea
constitutionalitatii ca si independenta puterii judecatoresti. 14. Constitutiile celor
50 de state ca si hotararile date de curtile de justitie statale au un impact la nivel
federal. 15. Faptul ca legile votate de statele americane ca si hotararile
judecatoresti atat la nivel statal cat si la nivel federal sunt atat de diferite a dat
nastere nevoii de uniformizare.

29

B. Prostituata cumparata de jurnalistii de la Daily Mail, trimisa in

judecata
Monica Ghinga, in vrsta de 25 de ani, din Iasi, este prostituata de aproape noua
ani. In noiembrie 2007, doi jurnalisti britanici au venit n Romnia si s-au dat
drept proprietarii unei case de toleranta din Londra pentru a testa ct de usor se
poate cumpara o prostituata romnca minora. Acestia au abordat-o pe Monica
Ghinga, care iesise la agatat in apropierea unei benzinarii din Iasi. Cu gndul
la bani, fata a mintit in privinta vrstei, spunnd ca are doar 14 ani si ca accepta
propunerea de a intretine relatii sexuale contra sumei de 800 de euro. Cei doi
britanici au fost de acord. Dupa ce a lasat banii la colege, o practica intlnita in
rndul prostituatelor fara proxenet, tnara a urcat in taxi cu cei doi, creznd ca
va merge la un hotel. Masina a mers insa intr-o alta directie. Dupa blocarea
portierelor, am realizat ca ceva nu este in ordine si atunci am sunat-o pe colega
mea, spunndu-i ca am probleme, dar unul dintre barbati mi-a luat telefonul
mobil si l-a inchis, a povestit Monica in fata politistilor. Fara acordul sau,
tnara a fost dusa intr-un centru pentru ocrotire a victimelor din Pitesti si
internata sub o alta identitate. Monica a stat aici aproape trei saptamni, timp in
care a incercat sa fuga pe geamul de la bucatarie si sa se automutileze cu o lama.
La sfrsitul lunii noiembrie, aceasta a reusit sa se reintoarca la Iasi. Intre timp,
cei doi jurnalisti s-au intors in Marea Britanie. Articolul intitulat Un adevar
socant despre traficul de fiinte umane: o fata de 14 ani lucreaza ca si sclava
sexuala, purtnd semnatura jurnalistului de investigatie Chris Rogers, facea
deschiderea editiei ziarului Daily Mail din data de 25 ianuarie 2008. In acest
articol, ziaristul britanic povestea cum, la inceputul lunii noiembrie 2007, a
reusit sa cumpere o minora in vrsta de 14 ani din Iasi, Monica Ghinga, pentru
suma de 800 de euro. Potrivit acestuia, negocierea pentru cumpararea fetei s-a
facut cu trei persoane, intr-o benzinarie din Iasi. Dupa achitarea sumei, Rogers
sustine ca a plecat cu fata intr-un taxi, devenind noul ei stapn. Politia a
anchetat evenimentul si nu s-a luat nici o masura pentru ca fata nu a depus
plngere ca a fost rapita. Potrivit politistilor ieseni, fata nu a acceptat neaparat sa
mearga cu cei doi pentru prostitutie, ci ca sa ii insele. Impreuna cu o alta
prietena, a vrut sa ii tepuiasca. Linistita, Monica a revenit la vechiul job, desi
a fost condamnata la trei luni de inchisoare in 2001, iar in anii care au urmat a
fost de mai multe ori amendata pentru ca acosta barbati si le propunea sex contra
cost. Teancul de amenzi neachitate, dar si dosarul gros de la politie au fost
analizate de procurorii care au trimis-o in judecata, sub acuzatia de prostitutie,
urmnd a fi judecata in stare de libertate. (Romania Libera, 2008)

30

31

LECTURE II -CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UK AND THE USA

Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD
2.1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UK
The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution in the form of one
document that encodifies all the fundamental rules, principles and practices
regarding the way in which the country is governed, as well as the rights and
duties of its citizens. In this way, the UK is unusual, as most democratic
countries in the world do have a written constitution (except for Israel and New
Zealand), the more so as a constitution, as a single document, describes the
principal organs of government and determines their relationship to one another
and to the individual.
2.1.1. The development of the Constitution
The Norman and Plantagenet kings rules through the Kings Council (Curia
Regis), which was the grand council of the realm consisting of the great feudal
vassals, the earls, the bishops and the barons. This Council, which is today
represented in Parliament by the House of Lords, was not only a judicial
institution, but also a governing body for the nation in which any kind of
business might be transacted. Yet, it should be added that the meetings of the
Great Council which were first given the name of Parliaments were
principally meetings of a judicial nature. In the course of time an important
development occurred. The Kings ordinary revenues were feudal revenues
which his vassals were bound to pay him as such, but he often needed more
money that these revenues supplied, so, when he required extraordinary
revenue it was clearly a bad political move to try to raise such revenue without
obtaining some kind of assent from the nation as a whole, upon whom the
burden of payment fell. For this reason it became customary for the King to
summon to his great assemblies, in addition to the magnates of the realm,
representatives of the shires and boroughs in England. Thus, the object of these
meetings was twofold: on the Kings part to obtain money and on the part of the
representatives of the nation (the Commons) to obtain redress of grievances in
the form of legislation. The King, with the consent of his magnates, granted
32

rights and liberties to his people by means of solemn enactments; in return, the
Commons granted him the money he needed. Thus, gradually Parliament as we
know it emerged, consisting of King, Lords and Commons. Yet, it must not be
imagined that this development was a sudden one, for the Model Parliament
(1295) of Edward I is now regarded by historians as a myth and it is thought that
Parliament did not begin to emerge in something akin to its modern form until
the latter part of the 14th century.
The rise of Parliament brought about a fundamental change in the constitution,
for in the course of time it became settled that Parliament was the sole
sovereign Legislature. This change was not effected quickly or without a
struggle. The kings did not lightly relinquish their powers, so, only in the 17 th
century, after the victory of the Parliament over the king in the civil war was the
royal claim to legislate without Parliament dropped. After James II fled and after
the Glorious Revolution (when William of Orange and Mary II were established
as joint monarchs), Parliament finally triumphed and the king lost the power to
legislate in England, but he did not lose all his power. In fact, the Legislature is a
trinity made up of the monarch, Lords and Commons, so it was for Parliament
(rather the King in Parliament) to legislate and for the courts to adjudicate as
well as for the king, acting through his ministers, to govern.
Yet, by the end of the 18th century it had became clear that no government could
rule unless it enjoyed the confidence of Parliament which had become the
ultimate and sovereign source of power. Thus it became normal practice for the
ministers to be members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and, as such, to
be responsible to Parliament for the administration of the Departments of State
and for the policies pursued by the government. At first the monarch continued
to be in fact, as well as in name, head of this group of ministers which came to
be known as the Cabinet (a name derived from the fact that they customarily
met in a small room) and hence the Executive.
But the course of constitutional development was against the monarchy retaining
the actual power to govern in many of its aspects. Fist of all, the first two kings
to be called George were foreign to England, did not have a taste for politics and
absented themselves from cabinet meetings, thus initiating a convention
followed by subsequent monarchs. Secondly, history made it inevitable that the
country should be governed by elected representatives rather than a hereditary
monarch (various causes were at work, such as the new wealth brought about by
the industrial revolution, the increased political awareness of the nation as a
whole and the widening of the electorate). Under the influence of the growth of
the modern party system, the actual work of government came to be done by the
kings ministers, who were, and are, answerable to Parliament, so the monarch
lost all actual power and responsibility for the control of the nations affairs.
33

2.1.2. The nature of the Constitution

Generally, the rules of a constitution, which are laws of fundamental importance,
are often embodied in a single written document. A constitution, like many other
written laws, cannot be altered easily. A constitutional amendment can only be
carried out if a very substantial Parliamentary majority approves it and it
generally involves a special procedure. Nevertheless, the British constitution is
not written, that is it has never been reduced to a single document.
Furthermore, as Parliament is sovereign it can, without any special procedure,
by simple Act, alter any law at any time, however fundamental it can seem to be.
Moreover, despite the fact that the English courts have always been astute to
safeguard the rights of the subject and there are legal remedies designed to
protect him (for instance habeas corpus), there are no guaranteed rights similar
to the fundamental liberties safeguarded by the US Constitution, for example.
As the Constitution is not written in a single authoritative statement it is said to
be uncodified, but it comprises a series of documents, containing the essential
constitutional laws (statutes, Acts of Parliament, laws, common law, customs
and conventions, Parliamentary privileges founded in common law or statute
law, but enforced by Parliament itself, EU law since the UK joined the EU on
January 1, 1973). Because of that and because it can be readily modified by Act
of Parliament or by general agreement, the constitution is said to be flexible and
evolutionary, changing over many centuries to suit circumstances. Some people
consider the flexibility of the constitution to be a good characteristic, allowing it
to easily adapt to modern times; others believe that the constitution is thus open
to abuse by governments with large majorities.
Many constitutional rules are laws in the ordinary sense, that is to say, they will
be recognized and enforced by the courts. But there are other rules which govern
the working of the constitution, which are not laws in this sense. They are called
conventions. They arise from usage, or agreement, tacit or express, and they
are adhered to, once they have developed, and not because the courts will
enforce them but because political expedience and respect for tradition demand
their observance. Thus, many of the rules that govern the functioning of the
central government and the relationship of the executive to the legislative are
conventional. For example, the cabinet came into being purely by convention, it
was not created by any statute. The Monarchs practice of abstaining from
attending cabinet meetings started as a historical accident and became a
convention, and now no monarch would claim the right to attend. By
convention, when it becomes necessary to form a new Government, the monarch
must invite the leader of the majority party or group in the House of Commons
34

to form it. In practice, the monarch will invite no other person to do so, though
legally the monarch could do so. The person so invited becomes Prime
Minister of the new Government, and this illustrates how the most important
political office grew up by convention and only in the present century did it
receive recognition in a statute. The monarch could refuse to give his/her assent
to an Act of Parliament, but, by a long established convention, he/she will not do
so.
There is another convention which is fundamental, namely that the monarch acts
upon the advice of his/her ministers. By convention, the Prime Minister may
seek dissolution of Parliament without consulting the cabinet, although in
practice it will not happen. Another keystone of democracy is that the
government must command a majority in the House of Commons, but this is
also a convention. By convention Parliament must be summoned at least once a
year, this being a convention grounded upon political expedience, for Parliament
alone can grant the Government the funds it needs annually for the public
administration. Finally, the fact that the courts consider themselves bound to
apply Acts of Parliament is conventional, and so is the doctrine of judicial
precedent itself.
Besides conventions, there are important constitutional rules which are not
laws, in the sense that they are not enforced by the courts. These are the rules
that regulate the internal affairs of Parliament, such as rules governing the
process of legislation and the conduct of debates. Many of these customs are
now contained in the Standing Orders of the two Houses.
The two major principles or pillars of the UKs constitution are the rule of law
and the Parliamentary sovereignty. The rule of law is the restriction of power
by well-defined and established laws. All men and women are equal before the
law regardless of their position. No man or woman can be punished unless he or
she has broken the law. The rule of law also holds that the government can and
should be legally limited in its powers and that its authority depends on
enforcing those limitations. The sovereignty of Parliament means that
Parliament (consisted of elected representatives in the House of Commons,
members of the House of Lords and the monarch via the Royal Assent) is the
supreme power of the state. It is not the monarchy alone, despite the fact that
British people are subjects to the Crown. Parliament has legal supremacy to pass
laws: statute laws, which prevail over all other forms of law. The courts of
justice enforce the laws passed by Parliament. However, the sovereignty of the
British Parliament is now affected by that the UK became a member of the
European Union and by the enactment of the devolution of power to Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as London.

35

There are three branches of the constitution in the United Kingdom, as follows:
the legislative branch (the Legislature) which includes Parliament, namely the
House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarch, the executive branch
(the Executive) which includes the Government, the Cabinet and the Prime
Minister and which is the branch of power responsible for carrying out,
executing, implementing laws, decrees, the administration, etc and, finally, the
third branch, namely the judicial power (the Law) which includes the courts and
the Supreme Court. The judiciary covers the judicial authorities concerned with
the administration and dispensing of justice. In the new constitutional
environment, Parliament creates laws, the Government and the public bodies use
the laws and the Courts monitor the application of the laws.

2.1.3. The sources of the Constitution

As already stated, the United Kingdoms uncodified constitution includes a wide

range of sources, namely: statute law, common law and case law, conventions
and customs, Eu law and authoritative works.
2.1.3.1. Statute law
Statute law is comprised of various written Acts of Parliament, namely
legislation laid down by Parliament and enforced by courts. These laws include
the following various pieces of legislation:
2.1.3.1.1. The Magna Carta
The name of this piece of legislation is Latin and it means the Great Charter. It
was signed by King John of England in 1215 and it describes the rights and
liberties of sovereigns, noblemen as well as ordinary men and women
(commoners). It is the very first time when written law defined and established
limitations to royal rights. It embodied the idea of a law which is supreme over
the King himself. King John is known for the abuses he committed, which
caused a revolt if the nobles who forced him to execute the Magna Carta. The
document also curbed the kings exploitation of the tax system and financial
privileges. The King promised to refrain from imposing any feudal tax unless he
had the consent of the Common Council of the Realm. It also guaranteed that no
person should be imprisoned, deprived of his property or outlawed except by the
lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. By signing the Magna
36

Carta, King John placed himself and Englands future sovereigns within the rule
of law.
2.1.3.1.2. The Petition of Rights
It was issued by Parliament in 1628. It stipulates that there would be no taxation
without the consent of the House of Commons. King Charles I was obliged to
allow the petition to become law.
2.1.3.1.3. The Habeas Corpus Act
It is an Act that forbids arbitrary arrests and detentions and requires that a
prisoner be brought before a judge and/or jury and that evidence be presented
showing why he or she is properly detained. Habeas Corpus was an ancient
common law writ issued by a judge, demanding that a prisoner be brought to
court. Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 bowing to public
pressure, promoted by King Charles IIs abusive detention of persons in jail
without legal authority, that is without either charges being pressed or the right
to demand trial and/or be set free.
2.1.3.1.4. The Bill of Rights Act
It does not deal with the civil rights of individuals, but rather defines relations
between the Crown and Parliament. It was a sort of contract that set out strict
limits on the use of Royal prerogatives by the sovereign. The Act put an end to
the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, namely that the monarchys power
comes from God. This Act also re-etablished the authority of Parliament over the
sovereign. It made the monarchs subject to laws passed by Parliament, obliging
them to govern the people of the kingdom according to the statutes passed by
Parliament and the laws and customs of Parliament. Consequently, it abolished
the right of the Crown to suspend or dispense with laws, raise taxes or keep an
army in times of peace without the consent of Parliament. It also reasserted the
principle of freedom of speech and of the proceedings in Parliament, and the
right of the subjects to petition to the king.
2.1.3.1.5. The Act of Settlement

37

It contains many important constitutional provisions, especially referring to the

succession to the throne. It made illegal the succession of illegitimate, adopted
or Catholic persons. Thus, the monarch has to be Protestant. The Act is the only
substantial piece of anti-Catholic legislation still remaining on the UKs statute
books today. Since the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights
as part of the British law, it has been argued that the discrimination against
women (due to primogeniture), Roman Catholics and those born out of wedlock
means that the rules of succession stipulated in the Act of Settlement are now
illegal. The Act also secured the independence of judges.
2.1.3.1.6. The Act of Union
It was passed in 1707 and joined England and Wales with Scotland to form
Great Britain
2.1.3.1.7. The Reform Acts
They are also known as the Representation of the People Acts and deal with the
Parliament reform as well as the reform of the electoral system, gradually
extending the franchise to all citizens. Thus, Parliament gradually became more
representative of the countrys citizens. The latest Representation of the People
Act, passed in 1969, lowered the age of the suffrage to 18, which is where it still
stands today.
2.1.3.1.8. The Parliament Act
It was passed in 1911 and it dramatically cut the power of the House of Lords
and asserted the legislative supremacy of the House of Commons. The Lords
(peers) are no longer allowed to block the passage of money bills and their
delaying powers on all other legislation are now restricted. Furthemore, the Act
reduced the maximum length of time between two general elections from seven
to five years, which is still the case nowadays.
2.1.3.2. Common Law and Case Law

38

Common law and case law is established by custom and judicial precedent and
is enforced by courts. Thus, a judicial decision that has been reached during one
particular case will then serve as an authority in future similar cases. Despite not
being written down, common law and case law have the binding force of
precedent. Precedent can change the law, but may be overruled by a superior (or
sometimes equal) court, or changed by legislation. Common law includes the
limits of the royal prerogative, for example, appointments, dissolution of
Parliament, pardons (the royal pardon) and reprieves (postponement or
remission of punishment).
2.1.3.3. Conventions and Customs
Conventions and customs are also laid down by precedent and to a lesser extent
by constitutional texts. They are traditional practices that are so long established
and so universal that they have acquired the force of law. However, conventions
and customs are not laws, so in theory they have no legal value. They are
enforced by expectations and convenience. Many conventions and customs are
linked to the Crown. Other are linked to Parliament, for example, that Ministers
are individually and collectively responsible to Parliament.
2.1.3.4. European Union Law
The United Kingdom joined the European Union in 1973. The European
Communities Act passed in 1972 stipulates that EU law takes precedence over
all domestic sources of law. Thus, laws and trade agreements established by the
EU are legally binding within the UK, which means that the United Kingdom
has to abide by European legal texts. The UK also follows case law stemming
from the European Court of Justice. In 1992 the UK signed the Treaty on the
European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), which triggered even closer cooperation between the UK and its European partners in economic, political and
legal affairs. This evolution has greatly affected peoples rights in the United
Kingdom, especially in the area of employment.
The European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1998, via the
Human Rights Act which became law in the UK in 2000. If a legal decision in
the UK is thought to break the rules of the ECHR the case can be referred to the
European Court of Human Rights, for a ruling to be made, which may overrule
British law. The Human Rights Act has been controversial in the UK, because,
on the one hand, it guarantees some rights that people in the UK did not
39

previously have, including some rights to privacy, and, on the other hand, it
definitely reduced the power of the UKs central government.
2.1.3.5. Authoritative works
Attention is also paid to the opinions expressed by specialists in certain classic
writings on the constitution. Here are some of the authoritative works: The
English Constitution (1867) by Walter Bagehot, English economist and
journalist, editor of The Economist magazine; Introduction to the Study of the
Law of the Constitution (1885) by Albert Venn Dicey, Treatise on the Law,
Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (1844) by Thomas Erskine,
English constitutional jurist and historian, The British Constitution (1967) by
Ivor Jennings, a.s.o. Even the opinions formulated by a famous 18th century
jurist such as William Blackstone are to be included in this category, as his
Commentaries on the Law of England helped change English Law from a
system based on actions to a system of substantive law. At the time of
publication, the common law of England was still, in some ways, in its infancy,
with people uncertain as to what the law was. The Commentaries helped to
solidify legal thinking.
The British political system of a constitutional monarchy is considered to
combine tradition, stability, authority, flexibility and adaptability. The very fact
that it has lasted so long is proof for the defenders of the systems
appropriateness and efficiency. Moreover, in more than 300 years, the UK has
not experienced bloody revolution or civil war. However, in the late 1970s there
was a suspicion that the United Kingdom was moving towards a totalitarianism
which could only be altered by a systematic and radical overhaul of the
constitution. There were declarations stating that the British system of
government was an elective dictatorship and that change was necessary.
Elective dictatorship refers to the fact that the elected part of Parliament,
namely the House of Commons, having achieved supremacy over the unelected
parts, namely the Queen and the House of Lords, has surrendered its sovereignty
to the government which controls it through the party machine. Towards the end
of the 20th century there was growing disapproval of the United Kingdoms
constitutional environment. Two main points were severely criticized: fist of all,
the fact that governments with large majorities in the House of Commons were
over-powerful and thus able to pass radical legislation, and, secondly, the too
few Parliamentary checks and balances which could restrain them from doing
so. There was also criticism related to the lack of individual human rights and
civil liberties.
40

In 1988 a constitutional reform pressure group was created called Charter 88,
thus commemorating the third centenary of the Glorious Revolution which
established what was to become of the UKs sovereign formula. It called for a
new constitutional settlement. It claimed for a Bill of Rights enshrining civil
liberties, an electoral system based of Proportional Representation, reform of the
House of Lords, independence of the Judiciary, equitable distribution of power
between local, regional and national government (devolution of power), as well
as a written constitution anchored in the idea of universal citizenship
incorporating these reforms.
Following the Labour Partys landslide victory in the 1977 general elections, a
number of major constitutional reform bills were swiftly introduced into
Parliament. The new Acts of Parliament provided for the establishment of
regional Parliaments (or assemblies) in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
They also led to the dramatic reduction of the number of hereditary peers in the
House of Lords to 92 in an attempt to make the upper house less undemocratic.
However, it still remains that none of the members of the House of Lords are
elected. There have also been changes in the powers of the House of Lords.
Above all, at the end of 2009, a new Supreme Court took over the former role of
the Law Lords and the role of the Lord Chancellor was reduced.
One of the reforms called for in 1988 was the devolution of power, which is the
transfer of functions from the central government to regionally elected
assemblies. So far, it has affected regions which have been regarded as nations:
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before dealing with devolution proper, a
few words should be said about the historical links between these nations and
England. As early as 1282, under the reign of Edward I, most of Wales was
controlled by the English. The region was incorporated to England in 1535 when
Henry VIII achieved the first Act of Union in British history. In 1707, Great
Britain was formed as a result of the Act of Union between Scotland, on the one
side, and England and Wales on the other. The Act merged Scotlands and
Englands existing Parliaments. However, Scotland retained its legal,
educational and church systems. Ireland was conquered by Cromwell in 1649-50
and this conquest was confirmed by William of Orange. In 1800-01 the United
Kingdom was created, following the union with Ireland. Yet, Irish Catholics
rebelled against their status as second-class citizens, which, after several failed
attempts at home-rule, eventually led to the partition of the country in 1921
between Ulster which remained in the UK and the Irish Free State which later
became the Republic of Ireland.
At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, nationalist parties in
Wales and Scotland (the Welsh nationalist party and the Scottish National Party)
41

started to increase their electoral base and gain seats in Parliament. In 1973 the
Royal Commission on the Constitution recommended a degree of legislative
devolution for Scotland and Wales. Initially, the idea of devolution was voted
against in the 1979 referendum, but in 1997, Scotland and Wales voted in favour
of regional assemblies. In the meantime, the Scottish National Party has become
the second party in votes in Scotland and the Wales nationalistic party has
become the second party in seats in Wales. The assemblies are elected for four
years with some form of proportional representation. There are 129 Members of
the Scottish Parliament and 60 Members of the Welsh Assembly. Debated are
conducted by a presiding officer and the executive, headed by the First Minister,
is accountable to the assembly. The regional Parliament enjoys transferred or
devolved powers in matters such as education, health, the environment, social
services, housing, etc Westminster retained reserved powers in foreign
affairs, economic policy, immigration and so on
In Northern Ireland, from 1921 to 1972 there was a Parliament in Ulster, where
Protestant unionists were overrepresented. It was suspended because of the
increase in terrorist violence and from then on Northern Ireland was under the
direct rule of London. The Northern Assembly in Ireland was set up after the
Good Friday Agreement of 1998. The agreement reached was that Northern
Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom until a majority of the people
of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. The
Northern Ireland Assembly has 108 members elected by proportional
representation. The executive is headed by the First Minister who must have the
support of both the Catholic and the Protestant Communities. The Assembly
exerts devolved powers in such fields as agriculture, the environment, education,
health and culture.
Despite the criticism that the United Kingdom may turn into an elective
dictatorship, there are a number of checks and balances, which can prevent it
from happening. First of all, the courts which can exercise a very powerful
check on the Executive, namely the judicial review, meaning that the courts have
the power to check the constitutionality of the laws. Then, in the UK there is an
official Opposition. Opposition MPs can vote against a bill, but obviously, if the
government has a large majority any Opposition from within or outside the party
in power will be ineffective. The media can also act as a deterrent, as journalists
can point out problems and influence public opinion, although they cannot do
much to stop a government which thinks it has the peoples favour. Party
discipline should also be included among the checks and balances, as party
members can express approval or disapproval for a particular policy and this
might have an influence. General elections, organized periodically, allow the
electorate to express their opinions as to the performance of a government.
European law, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe and the
42

European Court of Human Rights can also exercise control over the politicians
and the political system, especially the executive and the judiciary. However,
there is no official constitutional check on Parliament.

2.2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE USA

2.2.1. The Constitution
The United States of America is a presidential democracy, structured as a
federation. Central Constitutional principles, as traditionally asserted, are the
sovereignty of the people of the several states, adherence to the rule of law, the
pervasive force of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, federalism (the
relation of states to the federal government), and the separation of powers. In the
past, in practice, the separation of powers was between the judiciary and the
other branches of government. Today, even that delineation is becoming
somewhat blurred. The legislature and the executive are often intertwined in
their function, and perform tasks in a state of mutual dependency, known as the
system of checks and balances. State power emanates from the people who
exercise it though elections of legislative institutions, and also in some states
through votes on specific legislative propositions. The Federal Constitution is
the highest legal norm. Its application, interpretation, and further development
through case law are within the province of the United States Supreme Court.
Federal Constitutional law (the Constitution itself and the case law of the
Supreme Courts related to the application of the Constitution) is of pervasive
influence to American law. Its importance results from the fact that the
Constitutional norms may be invoked in any pending case and in any court. The
US Supreme Court is the highest court in Constitutional law-related matters, but
there are only few instances in which it has exclusive jurisdiction, preventing
other courts from considering a Constitutional law issue as an initial matter.
The Federal Constitution was ratified in 1788 by the original 13 states and is
now the oldest contemporary constitution in the world. It is extremely brief, but
it also has a degree of generality which makes it flexible enough to adapt to
changing social needs. It only has 7 main articles and 22 amendments which
provide the principal elements of the federal structure of the USA, define the
relationship between the federation and the several states, and secure the basic
rights of American citizens and of any other persons subject to American
sovereignty. Here is a brief summary of its structure.

43

The substantive provisions of the Constitution are preceded by a Preamble

which begins with the words We the People. and which emphasizes the
principle of democracy and outlines the goals and purposes of the Union. The
structure of the substantive provisions mirrors the principle of separation of
powers. Article I deals with the legislative branch, Article II with the executive
and Article III with the judicial power of the Federation. These three Articles
together define the elements of the federal government. Articles IV and VI deal
with other essential aspects of the federal structure, as follows: Article IV with
the relationship between and among the several states and provides for the
possibility of establishment of new states; Article VI provides for the supremacy
of federal law over state law. Article V deals with the procedure of amending the
Constitution. Fundamental rights are the subject of the first ten amendments to
the Constitution, the so called Bill of Rights.
The American Federal Constitution has undergone few formal changes in the
more than 220 years since its adoption. The Constitution entered into force in
the summer of 1788; the first ten amendments entered into force in 1791. Since
that time, there have been only 17 additional amendments. The most important
of them are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. They abolish
slavery (Thirteenth Amendment) and secure for all the basic civil and human
rights of the newly guaranteed freedoms. In modern times, the Fourteenth
Amendment is extremely important because of its broad prohibition of many
kinds of discrimination. In addition, the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment have been utilized to extend the guarantees of the Bill of Rights,
which technically only bind the federal government. These provisions can be
considered limitations upon the power of the individual states.
2.2.2. The Federation
As a matter of Constitutional structure, the United States consists of the federal
government and the 50 individual states, each with its own government. To the
several states must be added the District of Columbia (which has a government
of its own that, in a number of respects, also falls within the jurisdiction of the
federal government) with the federal capital, the city of Washington, several
territories that are not states (for instance, Puerto Rico), and several dependent
overseas, territories and areas, such as the Virgin Islands and Guam. The
Federation and the several states possess their own legislative competences,
sometimes exclusive of each other, sometimes concurrent. If legislative
competence is concurrent, the federal exercise of legislative power displaces
state law. Even if the Federation and the individual states enjoy Constitutional
standing independent of one another domestically, only the Federation acts with
respect to the outside world. It is the United States that is the subject of public
44

international law. Federal power is exercised by the two houses of the Congress
(the Senate and the House of Representatives) as the legislature; the President
and the ministries and agencies reporting to him are the executive branch, while
the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts make up the judicial branch.
LEGAL ENGLISH WORKSHOP II
Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD
I. Answer the following questions:
1. What was the Kings Council?
2. How did Parliament as we know it emerge?
3. What is the meaning of the phrase King in Parliament ?
4. Where does the name Cabinet come from?
5. Why can Parliament alter any law, including constitutional laws?
6. What are conventions and which is their origin? Give several examples of
conventions.
7. Is the Prime Minister selected by law or by convention?
8. Define the rule of law.
9. Define parliamentary sovereignty.
10. Name the sources of the constitution in the UK.
11. Define the devolution of power.
12. Are there any checks and balances in the UK?
13. List the main constitutional principles asserted by the American
Constitution.
14. How many articles and amendments does the American Constitution have?
Which are the most important amendments and why?
15. Name the three braches of federal power in the USA.
II. Decide whether the statements below are true or false. If they are false
explain why.
1. The United Kingdom has a written constitution in the form of a codified
document.
2. In the 17th century the royal claim to legislate without Parliament was
enhanced.
3. Ministers are members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, so they
are responsible to Parliament for the administration of the departments of
State.
4. As a result of a long historical process, the country came to be governed
by elected representatives rather than a hereditary monarch.
5. The law says that the government must command a majority in the House
of Commons.

45

6. Parliament consists of elected representatives in the House of Commons

and members of the House of Lords.
7. The Habeas Corpus Act is an act which forbids arbitrary arrests and
detentions and requires that a prisoner be brought before a judge and/or
jury and that evidence be presented showing why he or she is properly
detained.
8. The Bill of Rights Act reinforced the concept of the Divine Right of
Kings, namely that the monarchys power comes from God.
9. The members of the House of Lords, be they hereditary peers or life
peers, are all elected.
10.In the USA state power emanates from the people who exercise it though
elections of legislative institutions.
11.The US Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Constitutional lawrelated matters.
12.The US Constitution defines the relationship between the federation and
the rest of the world.
III. Choose the right answer:
1. The constitution, as a single document
a. describes the principal organs of government
b. determines relationship of the organs of government to one another and to the
individual
c. is a codified document
d. describes the principal organs of government and determines their relationship
to one another and to the individual.
2. The government can only rule
a. if it enjoys the confidence of Parliament
b. if it is the ultimate and sovereign source of power
c. if the monarch is the head of the group of ministers
d. if the monarch attends the Cabinet meetings
3. The UK Constitution is said to be uncodified
a. because it is not written in a single authoritative statement
b. because it does not comprise a series of documents, containing the essential
constitutional laws
c. because it cannot be readily modified by Act of Parliament
d. because it is not flexible
4. Many constitutional laws are laws in the ordinary sense
a. because they are enacted by Parliament
b. because they arise from usage or agreement
c. because they will be recognized and enforced by the courts
46

d. because they are observed for the sake of tradition

5. The Cabinet came into being
a. by statute
b. by accident
c. by right
d. by convention
6. Parliament must be summoned at least once a year
a. because only Parliament can grant the Government the funds it needs annually
for the public administration
b. by political expedience
c. by law
d. by the action of democracy
7. The courts consider themselves
a. above the law
b. bound to apply Acts of Parliament
c. dependant on the monarch
d. infallible
8. In the UK the legislative branch (the Legislature) which includes
a. Parliament
b, the House of Commons
c. the House of Lords
d. Parliament and the Monarch
9. The executive branch (the Executive) includes
a. the Government,
b. the Cabinet
c. the Government, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister
d. the Government and the agencies
10. In the new constitutional environment, the Courts
a. monitor the application of the laws
b. create laws
c. use the law
d. amend laws
11. The Bill of Rights Act
a. elevated the monarch above the authority of Parliament
b. re-etablished the authority of Parliament over the sovereign
c. gave the Crown the right to suspend or dispense with laws
47

d. denied right of the subjects to petition to the king.

12. Primogeniture
a. describes the state of being the second born child among the siblings
b. establishes the right of the first born child to inherit the title and the estate
c. describes testate succession
d. discriminates women because it bars them from succession to the throne
13. The British political system is
a. an absolute monarchy
b. a constitutional monarchy
c. a principality
d. an enlightened monarchy
14. The United States of America is
a. an autocracy
b. a confederation
c. a presidential democracy, structured as a federation
d. a partnership
15. In the USA, the Federation and the individual states enjoy
Constitutional standing independent of one another domestically, but only
the Federation acts with respect to the outside world, so the subject of
public international law is
a. the Federation and the individual states
b. the Congress
c. the President
d. the United States
IV. Read the text below. Select the terms related to constitutional law in the
United Kingdom and provide definitions for all of them:
Britains signing of the European Convention of Human Rights, administered by
the Council of Europe, has turned out to be as significant the British institutions
as our accessing to the Treaty of Rome. The institutional changes brought about
by British membership of the European community are not only important in
themselves. Within Britain they have inspired an increasingly open debate about
the nature of the British constitution. Is the settlement of the Glorious
revolution of 1688 the bloodless revolution, about which Mrs. Thatcher was
boasting at the Bicentenery still appropriate? Has the laboratory of democracy
become a museum? Britain is rare, if not unique, among democracies in having
a constitution which is unwritten, which is unmarked by a formal separation of
48

executive, legislative and judicial powers, and which is unashamed that citizens
should be subjects. The law is not a particularly significant restraint on
government: Britain has relied on the political process. There is a notion of
Crown rather than State with royal prerogatives being exercised by ministers.
The Queen reigns but she does not rule. All this is encapsulated in world
famous photos and films. The Queen, sitting on a throne, reads a radical speech
from a Prime Minister not showing that she might disagree. Peers in coronets,
peeresses in tiaras attend her. The Queens bewigged judges and bishops
observe. In the House of Commons in contrast Members of Parliament are
shouting as if they are still at school, except they preface their insult with a
courteous reference to Honorable members. Over the years the system has
worked, the monarchical symbolism in apparent harmony with democratic
functioning. For the 19th century constitutionalist A.V. Dicey, success was due to
the constitutions adherence to two principles: those of Parliamentary
sovereignty and the rule of law. That is to say that the highest source of power
in the land is the body which is the most representative of the people as a whole.
From this sovereignty derives the proposition that government ministers are
responsible to Parliament and that no parliament can bind its successors. The
rule of law implies that no alteration to private rights and privileges can take
place without due recourse to the law (with naturally an independent judiciary).
(Anne Corbett, Towards a written constitution?, Standpoint, June, 1990)
V. Find the correct definition for each of the legal terms below:
The Bill of Rights; parliamentary rights; civil rights; impose taxes; raise an
army; suspend a law; Parliaments consent; freedom of speech; the right to
petition; to call Parliament; the supremacy of the House of Commons; the
House of Lords; suffrage; parliamentary statute; conventions.
1. a generally accepted rule or practice; usage or custom;
2. the rights of each individual according to the law;
3. the right to vote in elections;
4. an Act passed in 1689, restating the rights of Parliament and people after the
1688 Revolution;
5. the right of a Member of Parliament or a Member of the House of Lords to
speak freely to the House without the possibility of being sues for slander;
6. to levy or exact a tax or a duty;
7. legally effective assent given by Parliament
8. the right of a British subject to forward an official complaint to the monarch
9. the position of having the superior or greatest power or authority by curbing
the power of the House of lords, abolishing or limiting its right to veto or delay
bills;
10. fundamental powers of Parliament;
49

11. to temporarily stop the action of a law;

12. to summon the legislative body to resume activity;
13. to gather a military force;
14. the non-elected upper house of the parliament in the UK, made up of life
peers, some hereditary peers and some bishops;
15. an established written law, especially an Act of Parliament
VI. Fill in the blanks using the legal concepts below:
Conventions; suffrage; freedom of speech; civil rights; the House of Lords;
impose taxes; raise an army; to call Parliament; suspend a law;
Parliaments consent; parliamentary rights; the right to petition; the
supremacy of the House of Commons; parliamentary statute; the Bill of
Rights.
The case can be demonstrated by _______ of 1689 and subsequent
developments. The Bill, a response to the situation in which a foreign king was
invited to take over the British throne, enumerated ________. A monarch could
not ______, ______ in times of peace, or ______ without _______. He was to
allow Parliamentarians the right to criticize: _______ was fundamental. The
king also needed to recognize that his subjects had rights too. They could not be
imprisoned arbitrarily; they could not be tortured. They also had ______ the
monarch without being punished. The process of establishing the two principles
was underpinned by the requirement (1694) that ________ regularly, the
establishment of _________ over the _______ (1911) and the extension of the
______. This view, traditionally that of legal circles, maintains that the
combination of ________, crown prerogative, common law and _________ has
given to the British constitution a clear set of rules. (Anne Corbett, Towards a
written constitution?, Standpoint, June, 1990)
VII. Translate the text into Romanian.
VIII. Read the following text and (i) choose the correct definition of the
bolded terms below; (ii) provide synonyms to the italicized words.
In a famous critique of Dicey the constitutionalist Sir Ivor Jennings maintained
that the system has worked and Britain has remained a stable democracy despite
the potential flaw which leaves Parliament with little control over the executive
due to the power of the party system and the fact that the ministers are
members of Parliament. And why? Because the British believe in it. Citizens and
institutions adhere to democratic values. A Marxist view that the constitution is
a set of fictions to legitimate the operations of a capitalist ruling class has never
had much support in Britain, outside a few intellectuals and trade union circles.
50

But recent years have been marked by the critiques of disillusioned believers,
and a huge growth in the number of those who are not believers at all. The
believers complaints centre on the powers of the modern executive and the
inability of Parliament to exercise an adequate control. Some of the language is
colourful. Lord Hailsham, a pillar of the Conservative Establishment
maintained in the 1970s Britain was saddled with an elective dictatorship, no
less. When the Conservatives took office and he became Lord Chancellor, the
Labour Party took up the phrase. There have been reforms in response. Will
anything happen? The centre parties have long been in favour of most of these
reforms. But its majority hates judges and finds the Bill of Rights based on the
European Convention too vague. But there is little sense yet in the British
debate that the most beneficial force of an entrenched Bill of Rights would be
educative, its message that the defence of freedom requires eternal vigilance.
Will that come too in the wake of the European revolution? (Anne Corbett,
Towards a written constitution?, Standpoint, June, 1990)
1. constitutionalist: a) a jurist specializing in constitutional law; b) according to
the constitution; c) belief in a government based on a constitution
2. party system: a) the number of political parties existing in the UK; b) the
way political parties are organized; c) the arrangement under which political
parties work together
3. to legitimate: a)to make something legal; b) to make something legitimate
and give it authority; c) to make something authoritative
4. trade union: a) a craftmens association; b) an organization which represents
its members in discussions with management about pay and working conditions;
c) a commercial association
5. the executive: a)a person in an organization who takes decisions; b) the right
to put decisions into action; c) the section of a government which puts into effect
the laws passed by Parliament
6. Conservative: a) a political party in favour of only gradual change in society,
and against state involvement in industry and welfare; b) a person who believes
that society should not change or change only very slowly: c) supporting
established ideas and institutions and institutions, and against sudden change
7. Establishment: a) powerful and important people who run the country and its
government; b) an organization or institution; c) the permanent staff of a
government department
8. elective dictatorship: a) the rule of the elected; b) the government controls
Parliament and not Parliament the government; c) the elected and the unelected
control each other
9. to take office: a) to occupy a set of rooms where an organization works; b) to
be appointed to a position; c) to assume public office as a result of elections

51

10. Lord Chancellor: a)a member of the UK government who presides over the
debated in House of Lords; b) a member of the aristocracy; c) an old, Medieval
position
11. the Labour party: a) the workers party; b) one of the main political parties
in Britain which is on the left of the political spectrum; c) an extreme left party
IX. Match the legal terms (1-10) below with their correct definitions (A-J),
and then translate these terms into Romanian:
1. devolved assembly; 2. the Act of Settlement; 3. customs; 4. primogeniture; 5.
succession to the throne; 6. reprieve; 7. emanate from; 8. legal norm;
9.substantive provisions; 10. amendment to the constitution (US)
A. a new clause added to a written constitution, changing it in some way; B. a
standard accepted voluntarily or involuntarily by society against which society
judges someone or something; C. a representative body (local or regional)
towards which power has been transferred from a central authority; D. an Act
settling the question of the succession to the throne; E. temporary postponement
of the carrying out of a criminal sentence, especially a death sentence; F. the
common law right of the first born to inherit his ancestors estate; G. rules
establishing the order in which a successor to the throne is decided when a
sovereign dies or abdicates; H. practices that by common adoption and long,
unvarying habit have come to have the force of law; I. stipulations that create,
define, and regulate the rights, duties, and powers of parties; J. proceed or issue
forth, as from a source
X. Find the verbs that best complete the collocations below:
1. The Sovereign must _______ on advice of ministers, especially the Prime
minister. 2. The prime Minister _______ the dissolution of Parliament if the
ministry looses the confidence of the House of Commons. 3. All money Bills
must ______ in the House of Commons. 4. The Sovereign must _______ a
member of the House of Commons who can gain the confidence of the House as
Prime Minister. 5. The Prime Minister _______ a general election after the
dissolution of Parliament.
XI. Choose the correct alternative to complete the sentences below:
1. The ________ met urgently at 10 Downing Street to decide Government
policy on the new economic crisis.
a) civil service; b)Privy Council; c) Cabinet; d) ministers
2. The Road Traffic Act 1972 _______ that it is illegal to drive under the
influence of drugs.
a) legislates; b) amends; c) requires; d) provides
3. The exact effect of legislation is influenced by judicial _________ .
a) interpretation; b) custom; c) sovereignty; d) codification
52

4. Parliament is a ________ body.

a) legislation; b)legislature; c)legislative; d)legislate
5.___________, codes and delegated legislation are all sources of written law.
a)Law reports; b)Statutes; c) rules of law; d)litigation
6. A court must follow ________ rules of precedent.
a)binding; b)arbitrary; c)entrenched; d)absolute
7. In general, a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament when it has received the
________ of both Houses of Parliament and the Sovereign.
a)consent; b)ratification; c)enactment; d)assent
8. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Parliament to _________ the exiting
law on alcoholic drinks and replace it with a tax on all drinks except water.
a) establish; b)abolish; c)dissolve; d)enact
9. The Minister presented the new Housing _______ to the House of Commons
for reading and debate.
a) Act; b) Code; c) Law; d) Bill
10. In the UK, prime-ministerial powers are defined and regulated by
constitutional _______, not by statute law.
a) rules; b) law; c) conventions; d) principles
XII. In the sentences below, replace the part of each sentence in italics by a
suitable word or phrase:
1. There are 650 elected representatives with the right to sit in the House of
Commons in the UK. 2. The system of rights and remedies developed by the
Lord Chancellor and the Court of Chancery is now administered by the ordinary
English courts, side by side with the common law. 3. In contrast to civil-law
legal systems, which are based on codes, common-law legal systems are based
on decisions of judges in previous cases. 4. The UK is a State in which a single
person called King or Queen holds the office of Head of State for life, but does
not have the power to govern the country. 5. The supreme power of Parliament
to pass any law it wants is probably the most fundamental rule of British
constitutional law. 6. In the UK the monarch is head of all judges. 7. It may be
difficult to find time in Parliament for revising and changing the law to make it
better when there is no urgent political reason which makes it necessary. 8. The
Queen opens new sessions of Parliament with a speech from the throne. This act
is part of the remaining rights and powers of the Crown.
XIII. Decide which word or phrase in each group of five does not belong
and why; use the remaining four words/phrases in sentences of your own;
translate the words/phrases into Romanian:
1. (a) Bill; (b) case; (c) enactment; (d) statute; (e) provision
2. (a) Crown; (b) Monarchy; (c) Royal Assent; (d) MP; (e) heir to the throne
3. (a) recommend; (b) pass; (c) abolish; (d) enact; (e) amend

53

4. (a) subject; (b) British nationality Act; (c) citizenship: (d) treaty; (e)
naturalization
5. (a) the Labour Party; (b) the Social Democratic Party; (c) the Conservative
Party; (d) the Social and Liberal Democrats; (e) the Republican Party
6. (a) constitutional convention; (b) code; (c) custom; (d) legislation; (e) judicial
precedent
7. (a) criminal law; (b) case law; (c) land law; (d) jurisprudence; (e) law of tort
8. (a) opposition; (b) majority party; (c) Cabinet; (d) Prime Minister; (e) Home
Secretary
9. (a) binding precedent; (b) judicial decision; (c) parliamentary sovereignty; (d)
common law; (e) authority
10. (a) life peerage; (b) delaying power; (c) Lord Chancellor; (d) House of
Commons: (e) Lords Spiritual
XIV. Translate into Romanian:
A. APART from the rain, nothing went wrong. Four days of impeccably
organised celebrations for the queen's Diamond Jubilee left the British feeling
grumpy about their weather but pleased with their monarchy.Fifteen years ago,
things were rather different. When Princess Diana died and the queen failed to
be seen to mourn properly, she seemed out of touch and out of time.
Republicanism was in the air.Since then a number of factors have given the
monarchy a boost. When the world is full of uncertainty, an institution that has
stood the test of centuries has a certain appeal. When politicians have been
caught fiddling their expenses, a head of state who is above politics looks rather
attractive.The troubles of the monarchy's enemies may also have helped. Rupert
Murdoch's newspapers, the royals' principal tormentors in the media, have
themselves been under attack for hacking celebrities' phones and other crimes.
They have laid off the royals of late, possibly on the grounds that harassing them
would go down badly with the readers when the monarchy is so much more
popular than journalists are.But the main change has been in the management of
the monarchy. There has been an increasingly tight focus on the royals who
matterthe queen and her successorswhile peripheral and occasionally
embarrassing family members have been airbrushed out of the picture. At the
end of the Jubilee celebrations, the queen was accompanied on the balcony at
Buckingham Palace only by the first, second and third in line to the throne
(Charles, William and Harry) and a couple of wives, rather than the usual
massed ranks of hangers-on.The royals have also fallen back on their core
competences: saying nothing and upholding tradition. According to Andrew
Marr, the queen's best recent biographer, she understands that she is a symbol,
and that symbols are better off mostly keeping quiet. Her son has failed to
grasp this, and sounds off on architecture, GM crops, alternative medicine and
suchlike. Her grandsons, by contrastadvised by a few canny ex-soldiers and a
former ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manningstick to the royal
54

knitting: serving in the armed forces, doing good to the poor and waving to
crowds.Finally, in the Duchess of Cambridge the royals have made a good new
hire. They have evidently learned from the disaster of Diana, a neurotic, untested
girl who had no particular desire to be queen. Kate Middleton, by contrast, dated
Prince William for years and thus had her character thoroughly checked out. She
proved her discretion during a temporary separation and her determination by
holding out for him. The couple look thoroughly dependable and dulljust like
Queen Victoria and her Albert, founders of the modern bourgeois model of
monarchy.Yet any institution's fate depends on the boss and, at 86, the queen
will not be in the job for long. As Prince Charles will do well to remember, the
monarchy's stock can go down as well as up. (The Economist, June 2012)
B. BEFORE the prime minister's friend and guru Steve Hilton departed in May
for a sabbatical in California, civil servants enjoyed gossiping about the
adviser's latest bit of unorthodox conduct. One story had him turning up to a
policy session in baggy shorts and messily peeling a ripe orange, to the
consternation of the besuited officials.Whitehall's Sir Humphreys (so-called
after the Machiavellian civil-service boss in a long-running TV comedy, Yes,
Minister) were even more appalled by Mr Hilton's disruptive ideas for their
future. These included slashing parts of the civil service by up to 90% and
encouraging outside agencies such as university departments and think-tanks to
compete with it, tendering policy ideas to ministers and bidding for the job of
carrying them out. At present, enacting policy is solely the domain of officials.
The problem many modern politicians say they have with the senior civil service
is that it is hierarchical in nature, backward-looking in practice and accustomed
to shielding its members behind a long-standing tradition that officials' dealings
with ministers must remain confidential. The result, they say, is clever
generalists with jobs for life, reluctant to change and with little experience of
turning big ideas into practicalities. Now that the fruit-eating Mr Hilton has
gone, the task of reform falls back on to two more circumspect figures. They are
Sir Jeremy Heywood, who is cabinet secretary (the official who most closely
advises the prime minister), and Sir Bob Kerslake, an import from local
government who has been made head of the domestic civil service. Within the
next few weeks, the two are expected to set out a blueprint for alterations. Some
of Mr Hilton's ideas look set for the cutting-room floor. Early signals are that the
outsourcing of policy will be less dramatic than he intended. Sir Jeremy has
made clear that he does not relish presiding over a clearing-house for external
policy pitches. One cabinet-office figure suggests that the impact of any
innovation here will be at the margins of policy, which sounds less than
revolutionary. Frustration inside David Cameron's team over the slow delivery
of reform has been mounting. Michael Gove, the radically inclined education
secretary, was quick to ease out a number of civil servants in his department as
he sought to free schools from local authorities. But Sir Jeremy, a veteran of
55

Tony Blair's government, knows how to please impatient bosses. For his part, he
wants to make it easier for the best civil servants to leap up the promotion scale,
and for the truly enthusiastic to stick with important projects and become
specialists. Sir Bob, his co-reformer, believes central government needs to learn
from the best local authorities, encouraging people and agencies to cross
established boundaries and work more effectively.Some of the new thinking is
imported from New Zealand which, under successive Labour and National Party
governments in the late 1980s and early 1990s, transformed its officialdom. This
included removing guaranteed tenure and issuing the heads and deputy heads of
departments with performance agreements, on pain of being removed if they
failed to make the grade. But British ministers are keen to avoid outright clashes
at the moment, not least because Ian Watmore, a senior Whitehall figure Mr
Cameron initially favoured, recently resigned amid rumours of disagreements
over the reforms.If one goal of the rethink is to ginger up officials another is to
make the system more transparent and civil servants themselves less shadowy
figures. Henceforth, it will be proposed, important policies will have the names
of key officials attached to them, so civil servants will more easily be held
responsible for their success. The reforms are also likely to give new powers to
parliamentary select committees to hold senior officials to account.There is an
element in all this of wanting to shift the blame for ministerial mis-hits, such as
a proposed holiday from national-insurance payments for small firms, which has
had low take-up. Too many such ideas, ministers say, are poorly followed
through. But others point out that bad policy callssuch as the pasty tax on
warm food (now revoked), or the unpopular move to limit tax relief on
charitable donations (under review)are matters of political judgment. They
will remain so, even if civil servants undergo a Promethean transition to
optimum efficacy.Far more important are areas where massive amounts of
money, rather than ministerial reputations, are being lost. One example is the
decade-long attempt to computerise medical records nationally, which has
produced a cost overrun of several billion pounds, a colossal loss by the main
IT-company involved and no functioning system. To avoid such fiascos, as well
as to tighten notoriously lax defence procurement, high-flying civil servants will
be sent off from September to the Said Business School in Oxford, to learn
contracting skills from the private sector.The result of these combined
endeavours, says Peter Riddell of the Institute for Government, a think-tank,
won't be ambitious pyrotechnics, but will make a real impact on how
government is delivered. Mr Cameron has lost his most spirited ally in his
attempt to remake Whitehall. His record on remaking the state will now rest on
reforms being driven through by two figures at the top of the service he set out
to change. Sir Humphrey would have been most amused by that. (The
Economist, June 2012)
XV. Translate into English:
56

A. Dup obinerea independenei SUA, a urmat o perioad de tulburri sociale i

membrii Congresului i-au dat seama c pentru o bun conducere este nevoie de
noi instituii. De aceea s-a convocat pentru 1787 o convenie la Philadelphia
care s adopte o constituie. La convenie au participat cei mai de seam oameni
politici americani(Washington, Franklink, Madison). S-a adoptat o constituie
bazat pe principiul separrii puterilor n stat, existnd dou grade de separare:
(i) o separare ntre atribuiile locale si (ii) o separare ntre atribuiile instituiilor
centrale ( federale). Instituiile locale asigurau ordinea, justiia, educaia,
transporturile etc. Instituiile centrale asigurau politica extern, armata, finanele
i comerul exterior. La nivel central puterile erau separate astfel: (i) puterea
executiv era deinut de un preedinte ales pe patru ani de un colegiu electoral.
Preedintele era eful statului, al Guvernului, ai crui membrii erau numii i
demii din funcie de ctre preedinte. Tot preedintele era comandantul suprem
al armatei, conduce politica extern, are drept de veto legislativ i numete
judectorii de la Curtea Suprem, precum i ali funcionari; (ii) puterea
legislativ este deinut de un congres bicameral, compus din Senat i Camera
Reprezentanilor. Senatul este compus din cte 2 senatori alei de ceteni din
fiecare stat. Camera Reprezentanilor este compus dintr-un numr de
congresmeni proporional cu populaia fiecrui stat (aprob numirile n funcii,
ratific tratatele internaionale, adopt legi etc.); (ii) puterea judectoreasc este
deinut de Curtea Suprem de Justiie, compus din judectori numii pe via
de preedinte. Aceast curte interpreteaz i constituionalitatea legilor.
Constituia a rmas valabil pn azi, dar ntre timp i s-au adugat peste 100 de
amendamente. Primele 10 amendamente au fost adoptate n 1791 i ele
prevedeau drepturile cetenilor americani. Constituia a intrat n vigoare n
1789 i tot n acest an a fost ales primul preedinte care era George
Washington.Pe parcursul urmtoarelor decenii teritoriile indienilor au fost
colonizate i s-au obinut i altele pe care au fost create noi state (Illinois,
Indiana, Yowa). n 1828 votul cenzitar a fost nlocuit cu votul universal al
cetenilor brbai albi.(www.istoriacontemporana.info/2011/12/constitutiasua.html)
B. Constituia Statelor Unite ale Americii este legea suprem a Statelor Unite
ale Americii. A fost conceput ntre 21 februarie i 17 septembrie 1787, fiind
definitivat n 17 septembrie 1787, odat cu adoptarea sa de ctre Convenia
Constituional a Statelor Unite ale Americii, care a avut loc n Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, urmnd ca s intre n vigoare n ziua de 4 martie 1789.Dup cum
bine se tie, naiunea american provine dintr-o lume de coloniti, la nceput
predominant de origine englez, la care s-au adugat, n timp, milioane,
provenii din toate statele lumii, din cele europene n primul rnd. Ca i n unele
state europene (Italia, rile Balcanice, Polonia etc.), popoarele de pe
continentele american i asiatic, aflate sub dominaie strin, i-au format
contiina naional datorit luptelor de eliberare i de constituire a statelor
57

proprii. Astfel, lupta coloniilor engleze din America de Nord, n anii 1774-1783,
s-a soldat cu o revoluie, care a dus la formarea Republicii Federale S.U.A..
Lupta pentru aceleai interese, constituirea unui teritoriu comun i a unei
economii unitare au contribuit la crearea unei noi naiuni naiunea american
, care a continuat s utilizeze limba englez.Cele treisprezece colonii de pe
coasta atlantic aveau deja un comandant ef i un guvern comun, pe numele su
Congresul Continental, atunci cnd acesta a anuat ruperea definitiv de
metropola mam, respectiv Anglia, la 4 iulie 1776. Luptele care se desfurau de
aproape un an ntreg ntre coloniti i armatele regale s-au transformat ntr-un
rzboi de independen, n cele din urm, pentru colonii.n timpul Rzboiului de
independen, cele treisprezece colonii britanice care s-au rsculat contra
Imperiului britanic, au format pentru nceput un guvern central foarte slab i nu
foarte eficient, avnd Congresul Continental entitate component, conform
Articolelor Confederaiei. Congresul Continental era un organ strict legislativ,
care adeseori nu putea nici mcar s produc legi datorit absenteismului
frecvent al membrilor acestuia. Puterile executiv i judectoreasc nu existau.
Congresul Continental fiind de fapt doar un organ legislativ, nu avea nici o
putere ca s impun nici un fel de legi, incluznd colectarea de taxe. Inexistena
unor ramuri executive i juridice care s aplice legile i, respectiv, s-i
pedepseasc pe cei care nu le respectau, fcea ca puterea Congresului
Continental s fie nu doar foarte limitat, dar, de cele mai multe ori, s fie
nerespectat, ignorat sau chiar ridiculizat. Absenteismul membrilor si era de
multe ori intenionat pentru a nu se realiza quorumul necesar trecerii unei legi.
Astfel, n mod frecvent, chiar i cele mai moderate propuneri sau schimbri erau
blocate. Rzboiul a durat pn n 1783, la nceput cu rezultate defavorabile
colonitilor n revolt, care vor recupera ulterior, beneficiind i de ajutor extern
(francez, spaniol i olandez), o dat cu perfecionarea n arta conducerii i
ducerii luptelor. Adoptarea Declaraiei de Independen de ctre Congresul
american la 4 iulie 1776 a dat un hotrtor impuls celor 13 colonii. Aprea astfel
un nou stat de sine stttor unde, pentru prima oar n istorie, se proclam ntrun act oficial principiul suveranitii poporului. Noua republic american, prin
diplomaia sa, aducea n arena istoriei un suflu nou, idealuri noi, simplificnd
ntregul ritual, greoi, opunnd diplomaiei monarhice, diplomaia naiunii.De la
bun nceput, s-a simit lipsa unui guvern naional i a unei Constituii. Puternica
criz din 1776 i-a ndemnat pe muli americani nehotri s accepte noul i
puternicul guvern central. Contradiciile erau att de puternice, nct se vorbea
chiar de un rzboi ce-ar putea surveni ntre noile state independente. Astfel,
un grup de oameni adunai n jurul lui George Washigton, Alexander Hamilton i
Robert Morris, dorind s ntreasc statul naional, s promoveze o economie
puternic i s asigure prestigiul noii naiuni pe lng curile Europei, au
ncercat adoptarea unei constituii.n septembrie 1786, reprezentani ai cinci
state s-au ntlnit n ceea ce urma a fi numit Annapolis Convention pentru a
discuta modificrile necesare care urmau a fi aduse Articolelor Confederaiei
58

pentru a netezi relaiile economice, i n special comerul. Cu aceast ocazie,

participanii i-au invitat pe toi reprezentanii celor 13 state s se ntlneasc
ulterior n Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ca s discute ce ar trebui s fac pentru
mbuntirea i nuanarea crerii organelor necesare conducerii federale. Dup
terminarea Conveniei de la Annapolis, Maryland, Congresul Confederaiei a
aprobat un plan de revizuire a Articolelor Confederaiei prevzut a avea loc n
ziua de 21 februarie 1787. Aceasta a fost ratificat n 1788 de Convenii alese n
fiecare stat, cu promisiunea votrii unei Declaraii a drepturilor care urma s
garanteze indivizilor libertile pentru care luptaser. Constituia Statelor Unite
ale Americii, cu toate c este veche de mai bine de dou sute de ani, este un
document remarcabil, supravieuind din momentul n care a fost elaborat, n
1787, aproape neschimbat. Cu foarte puine schimbri majore, ea a continuat s
furnizeze un cadru de lucru exemplar pentru administraie prin reprezentani i
admirabil protecie pentru drepturile fundamentale.Constituia Statelor Unite
ale Americii este legea suprem a Statelor Unite ale Americii. A fost conceput
ntre 21 februarie i 17 septembrie 1787, fiind definitivat n 17 septembrie
1787, odat cu adoptarea sa de ctre Convenia Constituional a Statelor Unite
ale Americii, care a avut loc n Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urmnd ca s intre n
vigoare n ziua de 4 martie 1789. La Convenie au participat cei mai de seam
oameni politici americani: Washington, Franklin, Madison etc.Constituia a creat
o uniune federal de state suverane i un guvern federal care s opereze
conducerea acesteia, nlocuind vechea uniune mai neclar definit i cu o
constituie mai ambigu, Articolele Confederaiei.
Imediat dup adoptare, a fost supus ratificrii tuturor celor treisprezece foste
colonii britanice, fiind votat i acceptat de adunrile celor treisprezece state
originare la date diferite, ntre 7 decembrie 1787 de ctre statul Delaware,
primul, i 29 mai 1790 de ctre statul Rhode Island, al treisprezecela i ultimul
dintre cele treisprezece state originare. Ca fapt divers, exist constituii ale
statelor care compun federaia american mai vechi dect Constituia federal,
cum este cea statului Massachusetts, din 1780, constituie care este nc n
vigoare.Dup intrarea sa efectiv n aplicare, la 4 martie 1787, exact aa cum a
fost iniial preconizat de ctre un grup al Prinilor Fondatori, respectiv validnd
Uniunea i Constituia nsi, la 21 iunie 1788, cnd pragul critic de nou state
semnatare a fost atins prin ratificarea sa de ctre statul New Hampshire,
Constituia Statelor Unite a servit ca model multor naiuni. Astzi, constituia
Statelor Unite este cea mai veche constituie de tip federal din lume, fiind efectiv
n vigoare de peste 200 de ani. n acelai timp, este cea mai veche constituie
scris din lume care funcioneaz nentrerupt de la adoptarea sa.Constituia
prevedea ca la nivel central puterile s fie separate astfel:Puterea executiv era
deinut de un preedinte ales pe patru ani de un colegiu electoral. Preedintele
era eful statului, al Guvernului, ai crui membri erau numii i demii din
funcie de ctre preedinte. Tot preedintele era comandantul suprem al armatei,
59

conduce politica extern, are drept de veto legislativ i numete judectorii de la

Curtea Suprem, precum i ali funcionari.Puterea legislativ este deinut de un
Congres bicameral, compus din Senat i Camera Reprezentanilor. Senatul este
compus din doi senatori alei de ceteni din fiecare stat. Camera
Reprezentanilor este compus dintr-un numr de congresmeni proporional cu
populaia fiecrui stat.Puterea judectoreasc este deinut de Curtea Suprem
de Justiie, compus din judectori numii pe via de preedinte. Aceast curte
interpreteaz i constituionalitatea legilor.De mai bine de dou secole,
Constituia Statelor Unite ale Americii este documentul de baz al celei mai
importante i mai influente republici pe care a cunoscut-o istoria omenirii.
Constituia american din 1787 a influenat decisiv constituiile statelor
europene, de la Constituia Norvegiei monarhice a anului 1814, pn la
Constituia republican a Franei lui de Gaulle, din 1958. Constituia Germaniei
din 1949 a fost scris sub supravegherea autoritilor de ocupaie americane. La
retragerea administraiei britanice din Cipru, n 1962, a rmas n urm nu o
constituie parlamentar de tip englez, ci un regim prezidenial de tip american,
bazat pe o constituie care este i astzi n vigoare. Dincolo de influena sa
istoric, prezenta Constituie a Statelor Unite ale Americii exprim un set de idei
indispensabile nelegerii funcionrii i legitimitii unui stat liber i
modern.Principiul supremaiei legii, ideea regimului reprezentativ, separaia
puterilor sau garaniile drepturilor individuale sunt doar cteva dintre acestea.
(www.gazetademaramures.ro/un-model-de-constitutie-12730)

60

LECTURE III - THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS OF

GOVERNMENT Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD
3.1. THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
When speaking of the UK system of government we have to speak about the
relationship between the main state organs, namely the legislature, the executive
and the monarchy.
3.1.1.The Monarchy
The monarchy is the most ancient secular institutions in the UK. Its history
stretches back more than a
1000 years. The monarchy is hereditary. Magna Carta was the first attempt to
limit the monarchs absolutism. Until 1603, the English and Scottish Crowns
were separate, but after this date, a single Monarch reigned in the UK. Monarchs
believed they ruled by divine right rather than the consent of the people and
were executive monarchs until Charles I. This meant they had the right to make
and pass legislation. The Civil War in England and the execution of Charles I in
1649 led to the acceptance of the supremacy of Parliament. From 1649 to 1660
England was a Commonwealth, that is to say a republic. During this period, the
Monarchy and the House of Lords were abolished. The principle of the
supremacy of Parliament was formalized in 1689 in the Bill of Rights, accepted
by King William and Queen Mary after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The
Bill of Rights provided that the King could not suspend laws or tax the citizens
without the approval of Parliament. The development of political parties and the
emergence of the Prime Minister figure in the 18th century, combined with the
spread of the voting right in the 19 th century, led to the constitutional Monarchy
Britain is today, where the Queen reigns but does not rule (Queen Elizabeth II,
succeeded to the throne in 1952). This means that the Legislative, Executive and
Judicial powers, as well as the defense of the country, are mostly carried out by
others in the Queens name. The Queen herself is supposed to be above party
61

politics, therefore she does not have the right to vote in general elections, and
she is not involved in the day to day running of the country.
3.1.1.1. The roles of the Monarchy
The monarch is an integral part of the legislature, head of the judiciary,
commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Crown and the temporal head of
the established Church of England. Nowadays, the British monarchy is a
constitutional or limited monarchy. The monarch or the Crown (the monarch and
his/her government) symbolize the whole might and unity of the State, but for
practical reasons, the monarch is powerless. The business of government is
carried out by the ministers, even if it is done in the monarchs name. The
monarch (His/Her Majesty) acts only upon the advice of the ministers.
Therefore the duties of the monarch are for the most part ceremonial and are part
of what is called the Royal Prerogative:
1.Head of State. The Monarch acts as a focus for the nation to join together;
he/she stands over ceremonial occasions, visits local communities, including
walkabouts where he/she comes in contact with the ordinary subjects and
represents the United Kingdom abroad during the State visits. The British
monarch is also the Head of State of Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
2.Head of the Commonwealth. The Monarch is also Head of the British
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of fifty-four
states with the English monarch at its head. It comprises 1.7 billion people,
which is 30% of the worlds population. According to the Harare Declaration,
Commonwealth members have a shared inheritance in language, culture and the
rule of law. The main aim of the Commonwealth is to promote cultural and
economic cooperation.
3.Head of the Armed Forces. The Monarch is the Head of the Armed Forces
and formally declares war and peace. Members of the Armed Forces swear
allegiance to the Crown.
4.Head of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. As the
Monarch is also Head of the Church of England and Scotland, the State and the
church are not separate. Moreover, the reigning Monarch must be a member of
the Anglican Church
5.Head of the Executive. The Monarch is the source of all executive power in
the UK. However, in reality, the Monarch does not exercise these powers; the
Government, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister carry out the executive
functions in the name of the Crown.
6.Opening of Parliament. Each autumn the Monarch opens new sessions of
Parliament at the Palace of Westminster with a speech from the throne in which
the major governmental policies are outlined. The official ceremony, called the
62

State Opening of Parliament, takes place in the House of Lords. The speech
from the throne is delivered by the Monarch, but, in fact, it is written by the
Prime Minister
7.Dissolution of Parliament. The Monarch summons, prorogues (dismisses at
the end of a session) and dissolves Parliament. For instance, before a general
election is held and after a major defeat of a government in the House of
Commons, the Monarch must give permission for Parliament to be dissolved. In
reality, the opening and dissolution of Parliament is carried out at the Prime
Ministers wishes
8.Royal Assent. The Monarch must give the Royal Assent before a Bill can
become a legal enactment. It means that the Monarch approves a Parliamentary
bill that has passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is
the last stage a bill goes through before becoming a law. Queen Anne in 1707
was the last monarch not to respect this convention
9.Appointments and dismissals. The monarchs consent and approval is
required before a Cabinet can be formed and a minister can take up office.
Officially, the Monarch appoints and dismisses Ministers including the Prime
Minister. In theory, after a general election the Monarch decides whom to call to
form a government. It is usually the leader of the party which has obtained the
largest number of seats. Yet, in practice the Monarch plays no role in the choice
of the head of the government unless there is a hung Parliament, that is a
Parliament where there is no established absolute majority.
10.Liaison with the Prime Minister. The Monarch usually meets with the Prime
Minister, during an audience at Buckingham Palace once a week, usually
Tuesday, in order to discuss current issues
11.Appointments to offices of state. The Monarch makes appointments to all
important offices of state, including judges, officers in the armed forces,
diplomats and the leading positions in the Church of England
12.Royal Pardon. As the monarch is considered the fountain of justice, he/she
is the only one able to remit all or part of the penalties imposed upon persons
convicted of crimes through the exercise of the prerogative of mercy on the
advice of the appropriate minister. The Royal Pardon is an official order that
stops the punishment of a person accused of a common law crime. It originates
from the era when the Monarch was considered to be above the courts.
Nowadays it is very rarely put to use.
13.Attribution of Honours. The Monarch confers honours, such as knighthood,
OBEs (Officer of the Order of British Empire), MBEs (Member of the Order of
the British Empire) and other decorations, to people who have made a
significant contribution in a particular walk of life. In fact, most honours are
granted on the advice of the Prime Minister, although a small number are the
personal choice of the Monarch, for example, the Order of the Garter, which is
the highest British order of knighthood.

63

14.Ceremonial duties and pageantry. The Monarch takes part in many

historical ceremonies throughout the year, one of the most well known being the
Trooping of the Colour parade which is currently held each year in mid-June to
celebrate the Queenss official birthday (which is not the same as her real
birthday, April 21st)
15.signs documents
16.receives foreign ambassadors
17.the monarch has the power to sign international agreements, to cede or
recede territory
The succession to the throne is regulated by the Act of Settlement (1700).
According to this Act the throne passes to the eldest son, and, if there is no son,
to the eldest daughter. Roman Catholics and those who marry Roman Catholics
are barred from succession, in other words the monarch can only be Protestant.
No descendant of the monarch can marry without the Sovereigns formal assent.
A monarch is deemed to have attained majority at 18 years of age. Should a
monarch under this age succeed to the throne, the person next entitled in line of
succession who has turned 21 will become Regent.
The monarch and the Royal family are provided with money to cover their
personal expenses (the Civil List). At the beginning of each reign a Civil List
Act is passed. The Civil List is made up of the annuities (annual grants of
money) coming from public money voted by Parliament for the upkeep of the
royal household and the Royal Family (for instance, entertaining and stationery).
Part of the Civil List is the Privy Purse for the Queens personal expenses. There
are other sums of money allotted to the Royal Family under the name of Grantsin-Aid, namely money granted by the Government to provide money for the
royal palaces and travel. In reaction to public and Parliamentary pressure, in
1993 it was announced that the Queen would pay taxes on her personal income.
Since then efforts have been made to reduce the spending of the Royal
Household (especially travel). The same year the Civil List was severely
reduced, thus the only members of the Royal Family now receiving money from
the public purse directly are the Queen and her husband Prince Philip Duke of
Edinburgh (and prior to her death the Queen Mother). Since 1994, payments to
other Royal Family members have been paid by the Queen from her personal
funds, as the Queen benefits from her personal wealth and income. Prince
Charles (the Prince of Wales) lives off money earned from his estate, the Duchy
of Cornwall, which is estimated to be more than 4 million a year. Revenue
from the Crown Estate (for instance from charging the public to visit
Buckingham Palace) is surrendered by the Queen to the Exchequer, in return for
Parliament agreeing to fund the Civil List and other Head of State expenditure.
Furthermore, in 2000 the Queen agreed to freeze the Civil List at 7.9 million
annually for the following 10 years. Lastly, in an attempt to increase
64

transparency, the Royal Familys annual accounts have been published since
2001. In this way, it is now argued that the Royal Family does not cost British
taxpayers anything. These charges are all part of an attempt to modernize the
Royal Family in order to improve its ratings in opinion polls.
The monarch has private property, but the Crown lands are not the monarchs
property. They belong to the Crown in its public capacity, namely the State. In
his private capacity the monarch cannot be sued in tort.
3.1.1.1.1. The Commonwealth
As early as the 15th century, Britain started to expand overseas and to build a
huge empire. In 1776 it lost the thirteen American colonies, yet the consolidation
of the empire was pursued in India, Canada, Africa and the Pacific in the 18 th
and 19th century. The colonies provided the mother country with the raw
materials it needed for its industry and were an important outlet for the goods it
manufactured. However, in the second half of the 19 th century and at the
beginning of the 20th, imperial rule was increasingly called into question and
some form of independence had to be granted to those whose populations were
predominantly white. Canada was the first country, in 1867, to obtain the status
of a dominion, which means self-government for internal matters.
After World War I the Balfour report (1926) made it clear that autonomy had to
be granted to the dominions. This led to the Statute of Westminster (1931) which
created what is now referred to as the Old Commonwealth by giving full
legislative power to the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South
Africa) defined as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in
status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or
internal affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely
associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The New Commonwealth (the Commonwealth of Nations) emerged after World
War II, when the Asian, African and Caribbean colonies gained their
independence in the wake of the general postwar move towards decolonization.
The Monarch is recognized as head of the Commonwealth by all members and
as such delivers an annual speech on Commonwealth Day (the second Monday
in May). The Monarch also attends the Commonwealth Games which take place
every four years. However, she is not head of state in all Commonwealth
countries, thirty-two of which are republics and six of which are monarchies of
their own.

65

The Commonwealth Secretariat was created in 1965 and is financed by the

member states. Its main task is to organize cooperation and arrange meetings,
such as the meeting of the Prime Ministers every two years. Finance Ministers
also meet on an annual basis. The Commonwealth can exert political pressure on
its members as was the case for South Africa, which was ostracized because of
its apartheid policy and withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961, before
being readmitted in 1994.
3.1.2.The Legislature
It has already been noticed that the legislative body is constitutionally composed
of the Monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons (the two
Chambers of Parliament). The legislature is the body of persons vested with
power to make, amend and repeal laws. In the UK Parliament has legal
sovereignty, except regarding certain EU laws since 1993. The period between
the time when Parliament is summoned and its termination by dissolution or by
lapse of time is called a Parliament. Parliaments are summoned and dissolved
by Royal Proclamation. By convention the Queen does not dissolve Parliament
upon her own initiative but upon the advice of the Prime Minister. If a Prime
Minister does not seek dissolution before the full period has expired, a
Parliament will die when it has been in existence for five years from the date of
its summoning, as the Parliament Act 1911 provides that a Parliament shall not
endure for more than five years. However, this period was sometimes extended
in emergencies by special Act, as in World War II. Each Parliament is divided
into sessions which usually last for a year. As already stated the Queen summons
Parliament at the beginning of a session and prorogues it at the end. However,
Parliament is not dissolved if the Prime Minister dies or resigns during his/her
term of office (in 1990, when Margaret Thatcher resigned she was replaced by
John Major, and in 2007 Tony Blair was replaced by Gordon Brown without
dissolution of Parliament). The same applies when an MP dies or resigns; there
is just a by-election in that constituency for that particular seat. Thus, a session
is formal and so public bills in progress at the end of a session must be
introduced anew when the next session begins. Prorogation affects both houses,
but during a session either House can adjourn of its own motion. Thus, there
may be adjournments from day to day, or for a week, or for a month or more.
The main roles of Parliament are to examine proposals for new laws, to make
law, including the amending and abolishing of laws, to scrutinize government
policy and administration, including proposals for expenditure, to provide, by
voting for taxation, the means of carrying on the work of the government, to
debate the major issues of the day, to examine EU legislation, to protect the
public and safeguard the rights of individuals; to hear appeals in the House of
66

Lords, the highest Court of Appeal in the UK. When carrying out its business
Parliament should take into account precedent, the rule of law and other
conventions.
The Parliamentary system in the UK is bicameral, namely since the 14 th century,
Parliament has been comprised of two houses which sit separately: the elected
House of Commons (the Lower House and to a lesser extent the first house) and
the unelected House of Lords (the Upper House or the second house). The
Monarch also forms part of Parliament, even if he/she only goes to Parliament
for the official State Opening of Parliament held each year at the start of the
Parliamentary session in the autumn. This is the only occasion when the two
houses and the Monarch meet all together.
3.1.2.1. The composition of Parliament
Parliament is composed of two Houses the House of Lords and the House of
Commons.
3.1.2.1.1. The House of Lords
The House of Lords is an unelected chamber (the upper chamber), whose role
and power have constantly decreased since the 18th century. It began to sit as a
separate chamber in the 14th century. The House of Lords is the debating
chamber of the members known as peers. The role of the House of Lords is to
complement the work of the House of Commons, considering and revising
legislation, debating issues of importance and providing a forum for government
ministers to be questioned. However, since the Parliament Act of 1911, peers
cannot debate and amend money bills, namely they cannot get involved in
matters of taxation and finance. The Act also reduced the ability of the House to
delay other bills. Peers can still deliberate and put forward suggestions for
amendments to non-finance bills but they cannot veto them, just delay them.
Until 2009, the House of Lords was also the highest Court of Appeal for civil
cases in the UK and for criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In theory, the House of Lords in its entirety fulfilled this role. In reality, judicial
decisions were made by the nine Lords of Appeal (Law Lords) who had all held
senior judicial office. They were appointed by the Prime Minister and were
under the chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor. They formed a quorum of three
to five when hearing appeal cases. The House of Lords, in its capacity of highest
appeal court in the UK, was flexible enough to be able to overrule its own
precedents, which made it an essential source of case law.

67

In the House of Lords the Lord Chancellor fulfills the role of Speaker, although
his powers are quite limited. When presiding, the Lord Chancellor sits on the
Woolsack (a cushion on the chair filled with wool). Peers and peeresses sit on
red leather benches.
There are two types of peers: the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal. No
peers are elected directly by the people.
The Lords Temporal (lay peers) can be divided into three categories:
a) hereditary peers and peeresses who have inherited their title from their
forefathers and who will pass on their title to the next of kin (the eldest son but
if there is no son to the eldest daughter). A hereditary peer has the right to give
up his/her title in order to be able to stand for election in the House of
Commons, as he/she cannot sit in both houses at the same time. Hereditary peers
and peeresses can disclaim their peerage within 12 months of succeeding to the
title. Disclaimer is irrevocable. During the life of a disclaimant, the title is not
passed to the next in line, but is left in abeyance.
b) life peers and peeresses who are appointed by the Prime Minister in the
name of the Queen, generally in recognition of distinguished service. Life
peerage is conferred by the monarch by letters patent, and appointment to a life
peerage carries with it a right to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote
within. c) Law Lords. These include the nine Lords of Appeal (Law Lords)
who sit in the new Supreme Court created by the Constitutional Reform Act,
2005. The new Supreme Court is independent of Parliament. In it sit 12 Justices
of the Supreme Court who are senior judges acting as the final arbiters between
citizens and the State.
All former Prime Ministers became life peers; prominent people in business, the
arts and sciences are also often appointed life peers. By convention, the
Monarch appoints roughly as many Conservative life peers as Labour or Liberal
Democrat peers.
Peers and peeresses are not paid for their Parliamentary work, but they are
entitled to get their expenses reimbursed (travel, food and secretarial costs).
They usually sit about 160 days a year.
The Lords Spiritual (clergymen) are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York
and the 21 senior Anglican bishops of the Church of England, who are entitled
to seats according to seniority of appointment.
The House of Lords has been going through a process of reform, which started
after the 1997 Labour landslide victory in the general elections. Reform has
been considered necessary for a variety of reasons, such as: it was considered
68

outdated and undemocratic, it was accused of being unrepresentative for the

population as a whole, as hereditary peers were mostly conservative, elderly,
white males, who were there only because of their inherited privileges.
Moreover, the separation of powers (executive, legislative and judicial) is
undermined.
Obviously, there has been support for the idea of preserving the House of Lords
based on two points: first, the belief that the House of Lords has functioned
more or less satisfactorily for centuries, so there is no need to change the system,
and second, that the House of Lords is supposed to be above party politics, thus
fairer, in a way that any new chamber probably would not be. Furthermore, the
age of the peers is seen as a source of experience and wisdom. The House of
Lords also carries out a lot of debates which frees time for the House of
Commons. Moreover, the House of Lords is considered useful because it can
amend or slow down the passage of radical legislation initiated by governments
with big majorities.
The House of Lords Act 1999 removed most of the hereditary peers. There are
only 92 left, in this way life peers became more numerous than hereditary peers.
In total, at the end of 2007 there were 738 peers, including 620 life peers.
There have been several proposals to totally reform the House of Lords, to do
away with all the hereditary peers, to have a fully elected House of Lords, or to
combine elected and appointed members in a new chamber of about 550
members, but none of these proposals has been accepted so far, despite attempts
to make all hereditary peers disappear.
3.1.2.1.2. The House of Commons
Today, the most important Parliamentary institution is the House of Commons.
The House of Commons is where the elected Members of Parliament (MPs)
officially meet to debate. Technically speaking, all members of the both the
House of Lords and the House of Commons are Members of Parliament, but, by
Convention, the term MP only applies to the Members of the House of
Commons, that is to say those representatives who are democratically elected
directly by popular vote in a general election or a by-election. MPs are directly
responsible to the electorate (an MPs constituents) and are supposed to
represent the people during the debates and votes in the House of Commons.
Each MP fills one seat and one seat represents one constituency. For the 1997
and 2000 general elections there were 659 constituencies and so the same
number of MPs. In 2005 there were 646 constituencies.
69

As already stated, the members are elected representatives of the nation by

secret ballot according to the electoral law. Elections are based on the principle
of universal suffrage. MPs are elected for a maximum of five years.
To be able to exercise his/her vote a person should be aged 18 or more, should
not be subject to any disqualification, should register in an electoral register
upon residence in a particular constituency on a qualifying date (10 October).
To be elected to the House of Commons (MP Member of Parliament), a person
must be 21 or over and not otherwise disqualified (member of the House of
Lords, clergy of the established Church of England and Scotland, Roman
Catholic clergy, all Episcopal ordained priests and deacons, undischarged
bankrupts, offenders convicted indefinitely or for more than one year, whether
detained or unlawfully at large, civil servants (as, by definition, and in essence,
civil service is a non-political and permanent institution), holders of judicial
office, members of the regular armed forces and the police forces).
After a Parliament is dissolved all seats in the House of Commons are subject to
General Elections. If there is a vacancy during the life of a Parliament (an MP
dies, is elevated to the House of Lords, accepts an office of profit under the
Crown), by-elections are organized.
The House of Commons has a Speaker elected by the MPs to preside over the
House immediately after a new Parliament is formed. He is an impartial arbiter
over Parliament procedure and the guardian of the rights and privileges of the
House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Commons is responsible for
Parliamentary discipline, keeping the agenda and deciding if a bill is a money
bill or not. He is highly respected and enjoys great authority.
The House of Commons is made up of two blocks of rows of green leather
covered benches which face each other. The parallel rows are located on each
side of the Speaker. This is an unusual arrangement, given the fact that many
Parliaments are based on a horseshoe shaped layout. At the center of the
chamber is the Table of the House on which is the Mace (when the House of
Commons is sitting) and the Dispatch boxes. The Mace is a ceremonial staff of
office which is there as a symbol of the power and authority of the Crown
delegated to the House of Commons in the past. The two Dispatch boxes (each
one containing a Bible), on either side of the Table of the House, are used as
lecterns by ministers and shadow ministers when they are addressing the House
of Commons. The term dispatch box may create confusion as it is the same term
used by ministers for the red leather cases in which they carry official
documents.

70

The Governments benches are on the right of the Speaker, while the Opposition
is on the left. The leader of each group appoints whips who are responsible for
party discipline and tell MPs how to vote when there is a division, during a
vote in Parliament. On the front benches (the benches nearest the Floor of the
House), on both sides of the House of Commons, sit the frontbenchers, who are
the most important members of the Government and the Opposition. The Prime
Minister is surrounded on the frontbench by his/her Cabinet. MPs who do not
hold office in the government, or are not an official Opposition spokesperson are
called backbenchers, for they sit on the benches at the back of the House of
Commons.
The term whip originated in the 18th century coming from wiper-in the name
of the huntsmans assistant who uses a whip to control the dogs. A whip is an
official of a political party appointed to organize and discipline the members of
his party. They especially make sure that MPs attend the sittings and vote in key
debates. There is more than one whip in each party (about 24 for main parties),
key positions being the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief
Whip. The term whip is also used for the written notices a whip issues through
the usual channels to MPs requesting their attendance for voting. These whips
have varying degrees of urgency. Each week the party members are sent a
legislative agenda of the business of the House of Commons. Each item on the
agenda is underlined so as to indicate its importance. One line means that it is a
routine item (a one-line whip), two lines indicate that the item is fairly important
and three lines denote that the item is very important and so every party member
must attend the vote according to the party line.
The House of Commons enjoys Parliamentary Privileges, such as freedom of
speech, as no MP can be prosecuted for what he says in Parliament. The House
of Commons also makes it own rules about how members conduct their debates.
MPs are paid a salary and an allowance for secretarial and office expenses. In
1971 the principle was established that an independent review body (the Senior
Salaries review Body) should make recommendations on MPs pay, the final
decision resting with the House of Commons itself. For instance, for the
financial year beginning on 1 April 2009 normal MPs Parliamentary salary was
64,799, on which they paid taxes.
The Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the House of Commons.
He/she wears black ceremonial robes and acts as chairperson during the debates,
keeping order and making sure the rules are obeyed. The Speaker is elected by
the MPs at the beginning of each new Parliament (for example, after a general
election) or when the previous Speaker resigns or dies. The Speaker is usually a
senior MP, but once elected the Speaker is no longer allowed to represent any
71

political party. By convention, the Speaker does not take part in the debates and
must remain impartial, only voting if there is a tie, thus giving the casting vote.
The Speaker sits on a raised leather seat at the top end of the Table of the House
that divides the House of Commons, the Government to his/her right, the
Opposition to his/her left.
The main political party that does not have the majority in the House of
Commons is called His/Her majestys Opposition or simply the Opposition. It
sits to the Speakers left opposite His/Her Majestys Government. MPs who
are neither the party forming the Government nor the official Opposition sit
facing the government benches. The Leader of the Opposition is surrounded by
the Shadow Cabinet, which gathers the opposite members for all the ministers
in the Government. Such a set-up facilitates debates in the House of Commons
and enables the Opposition to have a specialist in each field. It also allows a
swift changeover following a general election when there is a change of
Government. In this way, the Shadow Cabinet is a sort of cabinet-in-waiting.
Above the Speakers Chair there is a press gallery for journalists and on the
opposite side there is a public gallery for visiting members of the public. There
is also a VIP gallery.
The Leader of the House of Commons is a member of the Cabinet appointed
by the prime Minister. He/she is responsible for initiating and arranging
legislative business in the House of Commons and also presides over certain
committees, in particular, the Cabinet Committee on Legislation. The Leader of
the House of Commons is a non-statutory and non-Crown appointed post. There
is also a Shadow Leader of the House of Commons.
The MP with the longest unbroken service in the House of Commons carries the
title of Father of the House. When two MPs have served for an identical length
of time, the one who took the oath of allegiance in the House of Commons first
takes the title.
The proceedings of the British Parliament are published in a verbatim report
called the Official Report or the Hansard Report. The words uttered by the MPs
are reported as such, while omitting repetitions and redundancies and correcting
obvious mistakes. The report is published in daily, weekly and bound editions
and it carries the name of the private printer (Luke Hansard) and his descendants
who compiled the reports until 1889.
The Parliamentary Calendar is divided into sessions, each one lasting one year.
Since 2003 the sessions begin mid-September and end mid-July. On average, the
House of Commons sits for 155 days a year. When in session, the House of
72

Commons sits from Monday till Friday (selected dates only). The Parliamentary
day starts earlier and in theory ends earlier, although all-night sittings are still
technically possible. The proceedings of the House of Commons have been
broadcast on the radio since 1978 and televised on the BBC on a permanent
basis since 1989.
During the Parliamentary session there is weekly time allocated for the Prime
Ministers Question Time. It generally takes place once a week on a Wednesday
towards lunchtime and lasts half an hour, during which period MPs field
questions to the Prime Minister.
The House of Commons has several functions, as follows: a) it controls the
governments policy, as ministers have to answer the questions asked by MPs
during Question Time; b) it controls the budget; c) it passes legislation.

3.1.2.2. The functions of Parliament

Initially, the power of the Commons was very limited. However, as a result of an
irreversible historical process, it gradually picked up strength, becoming more
and more representative of the population as a whole. The Reform Acts of the
19th century were decisive in this respect. The Parliament Act of 1911 changed
the balance of power in favour of the House of Commons.
Parliament has two original functions: (i) no public money can be spent without
the sanction of Parliament, (ii) the legislative function. Theoretically, it is the
watch-dog of the nation, it has the power and the duty to control the
government, as a result of the principle of Responsible Government.
According to this principle, the government must command a majority in the
House of Commons, and, if it fails to do so, must resign or seek dissolution.
Therefore, in theory, the government can only continue in office as long as it
retains the goodwill of the House. But in practice this ultimate control function
is seldom exercised. The government usually represents a single party, so MPs
will seldom vote against the government. Thus, Parliament seldom exercises its
power of control directly, but exercises it indirectly in at least two ways: (i) the
doings of ministers and departments are subject to the daily question time in
the House of Commons where any unsatisfactory answer may be made public by
the Press and have a material effect on the popularity of the government and the
career of a politician, (ii) debates, whether in the Commons or in the Lords, may
show weaknesses in the administration. Debates are published and a summary is
transmitted to the nation by the media.

73

3.1.2.3. How a bill becomes an Act in the British Parliament

A law starts off as a Parliamentary bill. Bills can be Public Bills if they are of
general interest or Private Bills if they concern only one city, company or even
individual. There are four main types of bills:
1. Government Bills, which are the most important form of legislation. They are
introduced by a government minister and thus represent Government policy.
When a Government has a big majority Government Bills almost always
become law.
2. Private Members Bills, which are introduced by an individual backbencher
MP or a peer of any political party. They have relatively little chance of
becoming law because less Parliamentary time is dedicated to discussing such
bills.
3. Private Bills, which are proposed by an individual or an organization
(association, company, local communities) and which seek specific, usually,
local powers. Such bills are presented to Parliament following a petition.
4. Hybrid Bills, which are Public Bills and may be introduced by the
Government or by a backbencher. Such bills are very rare.
Once bills have been debated in the House of Commons by MPs they go to the
House of Lords for further discussion by peers. Peers are allowed to offer
suggestions for revisions and amendments on all legislation, with the exception
of finance bills (raising taxation). All amendments must be agreed upon by both
Chambers. The House of Lords can delay legislation, but since 1911 is no longer
has the right to reject laws outright. If peers do not vote in favour of a bill, the
Government is allowed to present it to the sovereign (for Royal Assent) anyway
after one year (in a new Parliamentary session). Following the obligatory Royal
Assent, a bill becomes an Act of Parliament and goes on the statute books. There
is no judicial review of the Acts of Parliament within the UK, but British
legislation is increasingly subject to review by the European Court of Justice.
3.1.2.3.1. How a Bill becomes a Law
1. The inspiration for the legislative proposal originates with government
departments, political parties, pressure groups, associations, expert bodies, etc
2. The legislative proposal is generally formulated by ministers and civil
servants
3. A preliminary White Paper or Green Paper as consultation documents on the
respective legislative proposal are subject to public consultation
74

4. Following the process of public consultation the Bill is formally introduced

into the House of Commons for the First Reading. At the First Reading, the title
is read to the MPs.
5. There follows the Second Reading, which is a general debate on the floor of
the House and then a vote is taken. The vote may have two results: (i) a majority
vote in favour of the Bill or (ii) no majority vote in favour of the Bill. In the first
case (affirmative majority vote) the Standing Committee examines the Bill
clause by clause and considers the amendments. The Standing Committee
scrutinises the provisions in the Bill and may amend it to ensure that it enshrines
the principles debated and approved in the Second Reading. In the second case
(no majority vote in favour), the Bill is rejected or re-introduced in an amended
form.
6. After examination by the Standing Committee, the Bill is reported back to
the House for the Third Reading, which allows further general debate. After the
3rd Reading a new vote is taken. The vote may have two results: (i) a majority
vote in favour of the Bill or (ii) no majority vote in favour of the Bill. In the first
case (affirmative majority vote), the Bill is sent to the House of Lords for a
similar procedure. In the second case (no majority vote in favour), the Bill is
rejected or re-introduced in an amended form.
7. The Bill is examined in the House of Lords. A vote is then taken, which may
have two results: (i) a majority vote in favour of the Bill or (ii) no majority vote
in favour of the Bill. In the first case (affirmative majority vote), the Bill is sent
forward for the monarch to give the Royal Assent (to be signed by the
sovereign). After the Royal Assent, the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and it
is enforceable.
8. In the second case (no majority vote in favour), the Bill is referred back to the
House of Commons. The Bill is re-passed by the House of Commons in
identical form in two successive sessions, with at least 1 year separating the 2 nd
Reading in the 1st session from the 3rd Reading in the 2nd session, then the
rejections of the House of Lords are finally overruled. As yet, this statutory
procedure has not been invoked.

3.1.3.The Executive
The Executive means the branch of power responsible for carrying out laws,
decrees, etc; it is the administration. The Central executive is divided into 3
main groups of institutions: (i) the Privy Council, (ii) the Ministry, (iii) the
Departments of State. Nowadays a new category of institutions should be added
namely government agencies.

75

3.1.3.1. The Privy Council

Historically speaking, the Privy Council is the last remaining vestige of the
Curia Regis from which all the other central institutions (the Legislative, the
Executive, the Judiciary) originally sprang. Now it is a formal body which gives
legal sanction, by Order of Council or Royal Proclamation to government
policies. The source of the Councils authority is either the Prerogative or
powers delegated to it by Parliament. The responsible head of the Privy Council
is a minister called the Lord President of the Council, but the monarch still
attends its meetings, including meetings to approve Orders of Council. The
office of privy councillor is mainly honorary now. It entitles the councilor to use
the title Right Honorable. The cabinet ministers and the Lord Justices of
Appeal are always members of the Privy Council. Yet, even if the Privy Council
is a largely formal body, certain of its committees, for instance the Judicial
Committee, still have active functions, despite the fact that, in practice, these
committees are separate from the Privy Council itself. The Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council is the appeal court for appeals from some Commonwealth
countries.
3.1.3.2. The ministry
Following a general election the political party which has won the most seats in
the House of Commons forms the ruling government. In other words, the
ministry is the government of the day. The head of the ministry is the Prime
Minister (by convention the leader of the political party which commands a
majority in the House of Commons). By a 20 th century convention the leader of
the winning political party must be a member of the House of Commons, and
not of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister also holds the essential titular
offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. Upon
accepting the office of Prime Minister, his first duty is to form a government,
namely to select a suitable cabinet or ministry. The cabinet is the nucleus of
the government. It is usually made up of the principal ministers, namely the
senior ministers, who mostly come from the House of Commons, but some of
whom come from the House of Lords (for instance the Lord Chancellor).
Cabinet ministers are always Privy Councillors and as such take an oath of
secrecy to Her Majesty. This oath is binding and the absolute secrecy to which
Cabinet members are sworn originates in the confidentiality which collective
responsibility requires if discussions are to be uninhibited. All the major
decisions of the government are taken by the Cabinet and all policy is ultimately
directed by the cabinet.

76

Cabinet members are bound by two constitutional conventions. The first is

collective responsibility (cabinet responsibility), already mentioned before,
which means that Cabinet members accept and publicly support any decision
taken by the Cabinet as a whole. If a minister does not, and expresses views
contrary to the views expressed by the Cabinet, he/she should, in strict
constitutional theory, resign so that the Cabinet is unified. Cabinet responsibility
(solidarity) has become an established convention. Every minister, whether he
be present or not at a cabinet meeting when particular decisions are taken, must
accept or act upon the policy of the cabinet as a whole, as ministers are jointly
responsible, therefore they cannot be permitted to remain in office while
professing separate and individual policies. Nevertheless, in recent times there
has been a growing tendency for ministers to flout this convention.
The second convention is that ministers have ministerial responsibility, namely
they are supposed to be responsible for everything that happens inside their
Department (ministry) and should resign in the event of a substantial error.
There is an old maxim that the King can do no wrong, and especially
nowadays, when the monarch is a constitutional monarch, who normally acts
through his ministers, ministers can be made legally responsible in person for
any wrongful acts which they do in the monarchs name. In order to secure this
responsibility, every executive act which is done on behalf of the Crown must be
authenticated by a document, either countersigned by a particular minister or
ministers, or bearing a seal or seals for the custody of which the respective
minister(s) are responsible.
The main function of the Cabinet is to determine, control and integrate the
policies of the government for submission to Parliament. Much of the work of
the Cabinet is prepared by committees, be they committees consisting of
ministers or other high officials and is assisted in its work by a Cabinet
Secretariat under the control of the Secretary of the Cabinet. The Cabinet
Committees are meant to improve the efficiency of the Cabinets activity by
looking at specific issues in detail, whilst the full Cabinet tends to concentrate
on major issues and decisions since it is the most important part of the
Government. There are two main types of Cabinet Committees that are both
appointed by the Prime Minister. On the one hand, there are the Ad hoc
Committees which are temporary committees established to deal with a specific
issue, and, on the other hand, there are the Standing Committees which are
permanent. The Cabinet is responsible to Parliament because no government
that fails to maintain a majority in the Commons ought to remain in office. It
ought to go to the country, namely seek dissolution of Parliament and call for a
general elections if it is out-voted on a major issue, or if it finds itself placed in a
minority upon a vote of censure.

77

Ministers are also responsible individually, especially the ministers who are not
members of the Cabinet. These ministers are the political heads of important
government agencies and also members of one or the other of the Houses of
Parliament. As members of Parliament, they are individually responsible to
Parliament both (i) in the sense that they are deemed to speak and act for the
government on all matters of policy within the province of their duties and (ii) in
the sense that they must be prepared to answer for the acts of their department
and other subordinates.
Most ministers are members of the Commons rather than of the Lords (for
instance the Home Secretary). Necessarily some ministers must be in the Lords,
partly because there is a statutory limit to the numbers of ministers who may be
in the Commons and partly because every government must have some
responsible spokesmen in the Upper House.
The current Cabinet
1. Prime Minister; First Lord of the Treasury; Minister for the Civil Service
2. Chancellor of the Exchequer
3. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
4. Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Chancellor
5. Secretary of State for the Home Department
6. Secretary of State for Defence
7. Secretary of State for Health
8. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
9. Secretary of State for International Development
10.Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
11.Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal, Minister for Women
and Equalities
12.Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
13.Secretary of State for Transport
14.Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
15.Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
16.Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
17.Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
18.Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
19.Leader of the House of Lords, Lord President of the Council
20.Chief Secretary to the Treasury
21.Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
22.Secretary of State for Wales
23.Secretary of State for Scotland
Also attend Cabinet meetings
24. Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, Chief Whip of House of
Commons
78

25. Minister for the Cabinet Office, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
26. Minister of State (Housing); Department for Communities and Local
Government
27. Minister of State (Employment), Department for Work and Pensions, and
Minister for London
28. Minister of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills
29. Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations
Also attending Cabinet meetings when Ministerial responsibilities are on the
agenda
30.Minister for the Olympics, Paymaster General
31. Attorney General
32. Minister of State (Europe), Foreign and Commonwealth Office
33. Minister for Children, Young People and Families
3.1.3.3. The government departments
The departments form the real executive organs of the central government, for
they, with their staffs of civil servants (permanent officials) implement the
policy of the government. Each department is headed by a senior civil servant
called a Permanent Secretary, while their political heads are the ministers of the
Crown. The Permanent Secretary has a staff of civil servants to work with. The
members of the permanent staff are servants of the Crown, which means that
in legal theory they may be dismissed at any time by their superiors acting on
behalf of the Crown, for the Crown cannot be bound by the contract it makes
with its servants. But in practice, as opposed to theory, the position of civil
servants is secure, as their terms and conditions of service are regulated by
Orders in Council and Treasury minutes, and in practice they will be dismissed
only for gross misconduct or inefficiency.
There is a large number of departments, some better known then others, such as
the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or the Department of Trade and Industry.
However, there is one department worth special mention, namely the Treasury,
which is the finance department of the State. It has been noticed that the Prime
Minister holds the office of First Lord of the Treasury, but it is the Chancellor of
the Exchequer who is the real head of the Treasury. The Treasury is controlled
by a Board of Lord Commissioners of HM Treasury, made up of a number of
politically appointed figures. Below these political offices comes the Permanent
Secretary to the Treasury, who is a civil servant and one of the most important
members of the Executive. As permanent head of the Treasury, he is the head of
the civil service. The Treasury is subordinate only to Parliament, it controls the
economy of the nation. All other departmental estimates must be submitted for
79

Treasury approval before being laid before Parliament. The treasury holds the
power of the purse which makes it the most important department.
Ministerial Departments are led politically by a Government Minister, normally
a member of the Cabinet and cover matters that require direct political oversight.
For most Departments, the Government Minister in question is known as a
Secretary of State and is a member of the Cabinet. He or she is generally
supported by a team of junior Ministers. The administrative management of the
Department is led by a senior civil servant known as a Permanent Secretary.
Subordinate to these Ministerial Departments are executive agencies. An
Executive Agency has a degree of autonomy to perform an operational function
and report to one or more specific Government Departments, which will set the
funding and strategic policy for the Agency. At 'arm's length' from a parent or
sponsor Department there can be a number of Non-Departmental Public Bodies
(NDPBs), known colloquially as QUANGOs.
Non-ministerial departments generally cover matters for which direct political
oversight is judged unnecessary or inappropriate. They are headed by senior
civil servants. Some fulfill a regulatory or inspection function, and their status is
therefore intended to protect them from political interference. Some are headed
by Permanent Secretaries or Second Permanent Secretaries.
Ministerial Departments
Attorney General's Office (see also LSLO)
Cabinet Office (CO)
Communities and Local Government (CLG)
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)
Department for International Development (DfID)
Department for Transport (DfT)
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Department of Health (DH)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
Her Majestys Treasury (HMT)
Home Office (HO)
Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
Scotland Office (SO)
Wales Office (WO)
Northern Ireland Office (NIO)
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
80

Non-Ministerial Departments
Charity Commission for England and Wales
Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CRND)
Crown Estate (CE)
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Export Credits Guarantee Department ECGD
Food Standards Agency
Forestry Commission
Government Actuary's Department (GAD)
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
National School of Government (NSG)
Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)
Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets/Gas and Electricity Markets
Authority (OFGEM)
Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)
Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO)
Postal Services Commission (Postcomm)
Public Works Loan Board (PWLB)
Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO)
Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
UK Statistics Authority
UK Trade & Investment (UKTI)
Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat)

3.1.3.4. The government agencies

An important tendency is to devolve large areas of public activities upon
government agencies, usually in the form of public corporations.
An executive agency, also known as a next-step agency, is a part of a
government department that is treated as managerially and budgetarily separate
in order to carry out some part of the executive functions of the United Kingdom
government. Executive agencies are "machinery of government" devices distinct
both from non-ministerial government departments and non-departmental public
bodies (or "quangos"), each of which enjoy a real legal and constitutional
separation from ministerial control.
Agencies range from Her Majesty's Prison Service to the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency. The largest agency in terms of staff numbers is Jobcentre
Plus, employing 100,000 people. The annual budget for each agency, allocated
by Her Majesty's Treasury ranges from a few million pounds for the smallest
81

agencies to 700m for the Court Service to 4bn for Jobcentre Plus. Virtually all
government departments have at least one agency. The Ministry of Defence has
36, the most of any department.
3.1.3.5. The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is the Head of the Government of the United Kingdom.
Officially, the sovereign chooses the Prime Minister, but in reality, he/she is
usually the leader of the political party with the majority of seats in the House of
Commons. Thus, the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the voters.
The Prime Minister plays a role on the world political scene. He/she dissolves
Parliament, although it is officially carried out by the monarch. The Prime
Minister also decides the date of the general election. He/she attends the Prime
Ministers Question Time once a week in the House of Commons every week
during the Parliamentary sessions.
As Head of the Government, the Prime Minister fashions the Government by
determining priorities, strategy and deciding policy, as the Prime Minister is
ultimately responsible for the policy and decisions made by the Government.
In his/her capacity of head of the cabinet, the Prime Minister organizes the
Cabinet, is responsible for his agenda, picks the Committee members and chairs
the Cabinet meetings. The Prime Minister decides the number and organization
of the ministries (departments).
To conclude, the Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament, a Party leader, the
head of the Cabinet, the national leader and an international figure.
3.1.3.5.1. Powers of the Prime Minister
The powers of the Prime Minister are not written down anywhere in statute
form. They are the outcome of Parliamentary conventions that have developed
over the centuries. The Prime Minister has the power of appointment and
patronage, thus he/she appoints around 100 Parliamentary figures, as follows:
the members of the Cabinet, ministers of state, under-secretaries and the whips.
Most of them come from the House of Commons with a few others coming from
the House of Lords. The Prime Minister also appoints various people to key jobs
outside Parliament, such as top civil servants (permanent secretaries, deputy
secretaries and heads of the security services), top members of the judiciary and
82

of the armed forces, bishops of the Church of England, chairpersons of various

commissions and committees, the Director of the BBC, the chairpersons of the
nationalized industries and of important tribunals and numerous NGOs
(quangos). The Prime Minister also plays a role in the appointments made by the
Crown, for example, knighthoods, peerages and various honours, such as
Commanders of the British Empire or Members of the Order of the British
Empire, etc.
3.1. 3.6. The nature of executive powers
The origin of executive powers is either in the statutes (Acts of Parliament) or in
the Royal Prerogative. Most of them are statutory powers, derived from
statutes. For instance, the powers conferred to local governments originate in
various devices, some of which entail acts of subordinate legislation.
Subordinate legislation is also referred to as delegated legislation or secondary
legislation or subsidiary legislation and it is law made by an executive
authority under powers given to them by primary legislation in order to
implement and administer the requirements of that primary legislation. It is law
made by a person or body other than the legislature but with the legislature's
authority. Often, a legislature passes statutes that set out broad outlines and
principles, and delegates authority to an executive branch official to issue
delegated legislation that flesh out the details (substantive regulations) and
provide procedures for implementing the substantive provisions of the statute
and substantive regulations (procedural regulations). Subordinate legislation can
also be changed faster than primary legislation so legislatures can delegate
issues that may need to be improved through experience. For instance, in the UK
ministers are authorized by many statutes to make statutory instruments, namely
orders and regulations having statutory force. They require no subsequent
confirmation by Act of Parliament, they need only be laid before Parliament and
usually become law if they are confirmed by a simple affirmative resolution of
each House. In some cases they are annulled by negative resolution of either
House.
Some executive powers may originate in the Royal Prerogative, that is in the
discretionary or arbitrary authority legally left in the hands of the Crown. In
other words, prerogative powers were originally special overriding rights that
the Sovereign had, and indeed, certain of them still are, such as the conferment
of the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit which is within Her Majestys
discretion. However, nowadays most prerogative powers are now exercised by
the Executive. Even if most executive power now derives from the authority of
the statutes, there are quite a number of executive powers that originate in
83

prerogative powers. Here are some examples: (a) by right of prerogative, the
Monarch summons, prorogues and dissolves Parliament; (b) because criminal
proceedings are conducted in the name of the Monarch and because crimes are
wrongs against the State (the Crown), the Crown has the prerogative of mercy.
First, there is the royal power of pardon. Pardons may be granted by the
Monarch upon advice of the Home Secretary. The Crown may also remit or
reduce sentences. Secondly, the Attorney-General, acting on behalf of the
Crown, has the right to enter a nolle prosequi in crminal proceedings; (c) the
Crown has the exclusive power to make war and peace (though it would be
unlikely to exercise it in the face of an unwilling Parliament) and of concluding
treaties with foreign State, and the exercise of this prerogative cannot be
questioned in any court of law; a.s.o.
All these and many other powers may still be exercised by the Crown as right of
prerogative, but prerogative power is the antithesis of the rule of law, therefore it
is necessarily subject to limits, in other words any act of prerogative must be
linked to a prerogative right recognized as such by the courts. In other words,
the Executive cannot generally claim that its actions are immune from questions
in court by pleading that they are Acts of State, above the ordinary law. The
Executive must justify them by reference to a recognized prerogative, to a
statute or to common law.
In relation to the powers of the Executive, the separation of powers seems to
have little practical effect, despite the fact that the proper function of the
Executive is to administer the laws enacted by the Legislature, because the
Executive now has extensive powers of subordinate legislation and it also has
powers of adjudication, which would be of the competence of the Judiciary.
During the latter half of the 20 th century, the number of tribunals falling outside
the system of ordinary courts increased. These tribunals have either quasijudicial powers to determine the facts of a case and to decide according to the
dictates of experience, not according to the fixed rule of law, or they have
judicial power, namely the power to determine the facts of a dispute and to
decide according to the law. Furthermore, in some cases there is a full right of
appeal from the tribunal to the courts (on points of law only, or no rights of
appeal at all, or the only redress is to challenge the prerogative order). The
decisions of these administrative tribunals, together with the decisions of the
ordinary courts related to administrative matters form the bulk of administrative
law.

3.2. THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

84

3.2.1. The Legislature: Congress

The Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government and consists of
two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The composition of
the two chambers and the election of the members of each chamber are subject
to different rules.
Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms. US
citizens who have turned 18 have the right to vote, but eligibility for election has
a different set of limitations attainment of the age of 25, US citizenship for at
least seven years and US residence. There is no limitation on the number of
times a person can stand for reelection.
Members of the Senate are elected for six years. Their terms are arranged in
such a way so that every two years one third of the Senate stands for reelection.
To be eligible for election as Senator, the candidate must have attained the age
of 30, have US citizenship for at least nine years and residence in that particular
state to be represented. Again, the right to seek reelection is unlimited.
Initially, the House of Representatives had 65 members, but as the American
population grew, the number changed until 1929 when Congress fixed the
number of members by statute to 435. Members represent districts within the
respective states. The seats are distributed among the states according to the
population of the state, data which come from the census according to
Constitutional mandate. Legislative districts are delimited by state legislation.
However, legislatures must observe the principle established by the Supreme
Court case law, namely one man, one vote, in other words each person must be
granted equal weight in voting. Yet, elections to the House of Representatives
are not subject to the principle of proportionality, because each district elects
only one candidate and most states follow the winner-takes-all principle,
namely that each voter casts one vote and the candidate with the most votes wins
and all the other votes go for naught. The practice of majority voting has
contributed to the dominance of the two major parties, the Democrat Party and
the Republican Party.
The Senate consists of two senators for each state, that is 100 senators
altogether. Contrary to the composition of the House of Representatives, each
state enjoys equal representation and weight in the Senate irrespective of its size
and population. Historically speaking, it was a concession granted to smaller
states to secure their agreement to the constitution. Senators have a longer
period of service and they go through a staggered election, both these factors
being meant to give the Senate a stabilizing function and to assure greater
continuity than might be expected from the short period of office in the House of
Representatives.
85

3.2.1.1. How a Bill becomes an Act in the American Congress

Both senators and representatives may propose bills. The legislative process can
be divided into three general stages: the introduction of legislative proposals
(bills), their adoption by both chambers of Congress and their approval by the
President. The bills go to the full committees of the chamber from which they
originate, and, if indicated, hearings are organized involving experts and
representatives of interest groups. Then they go to the various subcommittees to
be studied, read and approved. Hearings are organized to debate on the proposed
bills. After being studied by the subcommittees, the bills return to the full
committees for more hearings and revisions on the amendments proposed by the
subcommittees. In the end, after debates on the floor of the respective house,
the bill may be passed or defeated (rejected). If the bill passes, it will go
through the same procedure in the other house. A final vote is taken on the floor
of the second house to decide whether the bill is passed or is defeated. If the bill
passes in the second chamber as well, a committee of conference is established.
The committee of conference includes representatives of both houses and its
task is to work out a compromise version to be sent to each of the two houses for
final approval. If the compromise bill has the unanimity of both houses it is sent
to the White House for the President to promulgate it. The President can either
sign it into a law or veto it and return it to Congress. If the President does not
act for ten days and if Congress is in session during this time, his approval is
assumed. If the Bill is returned to Congress, the bill can be enacted without the
Presidents signature with only a two-third majority in each House of Congress.
The fact that both houses and the president participate in almost all phases of
law making (except with respect to entering international agreements)
demonstrates that bills will generally be successful only if there is significant
willingness to compromise.
3.2.1.2. Amending the Constitution
Amending the Constitution follows a special form of legislative action, as there
are very stringent requirements. An Amendment requires a two-thirds majority
in both houses of Congress and approval by three-fourths of the states. In the
220-year history of the Constitution, amendments have occurred only 17 times.
3.2.1.3. The legislative competence of Congress
As established by the American Constitution, Congress may establish armed
forces, declare war, deal with currency and money in general, regulate
naturalization of foreigners (conferral of citizenship), regulate trade with foreign
nations and other states of the union as well the Indian tribes. It establishes the
86

postal system, creates patent and copyright law, and promulgates bankruptcy law
and statutes governing the District of Columbia, the seat of the federal
government agency. It may impose taxes and take up credits for federal
expenditures. Congress may adopt laws that are necessary and proper for the
exercise of its competences. The Necessary and Proper Clause is a source of
federal legislative authority. Here is an example: the Constitution does not
expressly grant federal legislative authority in criminal matters, yet Congress
has the power to establish and maintain armed forces, therefore it is necessary
and proper, and permissible under the Constitution, for the military to deal with
the conduct of people in the armed forces and to establish sanctions for
misconduct. Thus, it is within the legislative competence of Congress to adopt
the Code of Military Justice.
Matters that are not delegated to the Congress remain within the competence of
the several states, as expressly provided by the Tenth Amendment of the
Constitution.
3.2.2. The Executive Branch: President and Federal Government
The President exercises the executive powers of the Federal Government. In the
United States, the office of the President combines the functions of Head of
State and Chief of Government. The President is also Commander-in-Chief of
the armed forces and Chief Executive of the Federal Government. His
independence is ensured by the fact that his political, executive and
administrative actions are not subject to any legislative control. There is no
provision for a vote of no confidence that could force the resignation of the
President. There is only one form of legislative control that could lead to the
removal of the president from office, namely impeachment.
In his capacity of Head of State, the President represents the United States
internationally, such as when entering international agreements, accrediting
ambassadors and recognizing new foreign states. Domestically, the President
signs and promulgates federal statutory law and exercises the right of pardon.
In his capacity of Chief of Government, the President has the sole responsibility
for the direction of the federal government. The Constitution does not mention
the departments (ministries) which are created by congressional legislation. The
Chief Officers (secretaries) heading these departments are named by the
President with the approval of the Senate and they can be dismissed by the
President at any time. The cabinet consists of the President, the Vice President,
the secretaries, additional advisors to the President and other officials with
87

cabinet rank. The cabinet is not a collective body that arrives at binding
decisions, but it is, instead, advisory to the President.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President oversees and commands the armed
forces. In fact, the presidential power is exercised through the Department of
Defense, headed by the Secretary of Defense, working with the different heads
of the different branches of the armed services (the Joint Chiefs of Staff). The
Constitution provides that it is the Congress alone which has the right to declare
war, but it is the President who determines its conduct. There have been times
when military action was initiated without Congressional assent for instance,
in 1950, the United States entered into the Korean War without a Congressional
declaration of war. More recently, an important question has arisen whether the
President, acting as Commander-in-Chief, is subject to control by the Congress.
For instance, President George W. Bush, in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist
attack, designated certain detained persons as illegal enemy combatants, and as
a result of this designation these persons would not be entitled to treatment as
prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Yet, in 2008 the US Supreme
Court decided that persons detained in the Guantanamo Bay internment camp
are entitled to have the legality of their detention reviewed by a US court.
To be able to direct the vast federal governmental and administrative machinery,
the President is assisted by an agency under his personal direction, namely the
Executive Office of the President, with several thousand employees. Its most
important parts are: the White House Office (the personal assistants and advisors
of the president under the direction of the Chief-of-Staff), the Office of
management and budget, the National Security Council and the Council of
Economic Advisors.
In addition to this Office and to the various departments of the federal
government, there are a number of independent agencies that exercise executive
functions, among which a chief position is held by the regulatory agencies, such
as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the US
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications
Commission. These agencies are not administrative agencies in the usual sense
since they neither report nor are subject to supervision by a department. They
are independent and are governed by the provisions of the statutes creating them
as well as by principles of general Constitutional and administrative law. Their
members (commissioners) are appointed by the President with the approval of
the Senate for stated terms. These agencies exercise important regulatory and
control functions in the application of the relevant laws and have the power to
issue binding administrative regulations and decisions.

88

3.2.2.1. Election of the President

Every citizen of the United States has the right to vote in presidential elections.
For a person to be eligible to be elected President of the United States a person
must be a natural born US citizen who has been a resident of the United Stated
for 14 years and has attained the age of 35. The President is elected for a fouryear term. Initially, reelection was not regulated, this is why President Frankling
D.Roosevelt could be elected for four terms. The 22 nd Amendment to the
Constitution was adopted in 1951 thus limiting election to two terms. The
President is independent of direction or control by Congress.
Nomination for candidacy to the offices of President and Vice President is made
by party congresses, which consist of delegates elected for this purpose in
primary elections in the individual states as well as a number of so-called superdelegates (party functionaries as well state governors and members of Congress
of each particular party). The election of the President and Vive President takes
place through ballots separate from the general congressional elections. Their
election is indirect. Despite the fact that their names appear on the ballot the
election is one of the electors, whose number equals the sum of each states
senators and representatives in Congress. In casting their ballots in the Electoral
College, the electors usually cast their votes for the candidate who received the
simple majority in their respective state. This system makes it possible for a
person receiving less than a majority of the popular vote countrywide to be
elected President by the Electoral College. It happened four times in American
history: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin
Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000). So far there have been
unsuccessful efforts to introduce a system of direct election and it is unlikely
that the system will ever be changed as it represents the idea of American
federalism that the President is elected by the people of the several states and not
by the nation as a whole, therefore providing the individuality and importance of
the individual states of the Union. The winner-take-all system that prevails in
the Electoral College has two more consequences. Firstly, it preserves the twoparty system because it is unlikely that a new party can ever obtain a majority in
a sufficient number of states. Secondly, in order to gain a majority for itself,
each of the two dominant parties must be sensitive to the issues advocated by
new minority parties and incorporate some of their concerns and ideas into their
own campaign (electoral) platforms.
3.2.2.2. Removal of the President

89

The President can only be removed through the impeachment process.

Impeachment is an indictment that requires an allegation of very serious
offenses, such as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The
Supreme Court has never had occasion to rule exactly what constitutes high
crimes and misdemeanors. The indictment or the Bill of Impeachment requires
a majority in the House of Representatives to be adopted. Thereafter, the Senate
functions as a court in which the accusations in the Bill of Impeachment are
tried. It meets under the Presidency of the Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court. The Senate must convict the accused President with a two-thirds
majority, after which he is removed from office. Removal from Presidency also
entails ineligibility to hold any other public office. So far, no President has been
removed from office as a result of the application of this procedure.
After the removal or resignation of the President, or in the event of his death
while in office or in case of his incapacity to perform his duties, the Vice
President succeeds to the position. In case the Vice President cannot or ceases to
serve, he will be succeeded, in order, by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and thereafter by the members of the cabinet, the Secretary of
State being first in line. Each potential successor must meet the Constitutional
requirements for serving as President.
3.2.3. The Judicial Body: The US Supreme Court and the Lower Federal
Courts
The Supreme Court was established in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution which also confers power on Congress to establish other inferior
federal courts, but the Constitution does not designate the Supreme Court a
Constitutional Court, which means that, under the articles of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court cannot exercise Constitutional control (cannot review laws or
measures of the executive for their constitutionality and hold them as
unconstitutional). Yet, the Supreme Court developed this aspect of its
jurisdiction through case law. In time, the Supreme Court has developed its
comprehensive judicial review power of legislative and executive actions for
their Constitutionality at state legislation level, federal law level and even
presidential action level.
3.2.4. The States of the Union
The governmental structure of each respective state of the Union mirrors that of
the federal government. Thus, state governments consist of three branches, the
90

Governor being the Head of State and Head of the State Executive. Just like in
the case of federal presidential election, elections for the governor position are
separate from elections for the state Parliament, but as different from federal
elections, it is a direct election process. Eligibility to vote or to stand for election
is regulated by state law.
The structure of the executive arm parallels that of the federal government. This
is true for the state legislative branch as well, which in most states uses the twochamber system.
The judicial branch also consists of three levels, with a state supreme court as
final appellate body, a court of appeal as intermediate appellate court and a
system of trial courts. The trial court level is where there are most differences
among the states.
The forms of local government also vary greatly from state to state. The state
legislature generally provides for the establishment of inferior governmental
units, such as, in descending order, counties, cities and other localities with legal
personality, such as villages. All units of local government have the power to
levy taxes it may be a matter of special levies in addition and in parallel to the
imposition of other taxes, such as state income tax. However, as a rule, special
local levies are part of the general tax levied by the local government as part of
the county or city real property tax.
Today, local government budgets consist of a mix of revenues from local
taxation, federal revenue sharing and other federal assistance.
3.2.5. US Territories
There are special structures and forms of government and administration for the
District of Columbia (and the federal capital Washington) and for dependent
overseas territories (such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) and dependent
possessions (such as Guam). Federal legislative and judicial jurisdiction extends
to these areas, yet they are largely autonomous within this framework. Their
citizens possess American citizenship, but since they are not citizens of any
particular state of the union do not vote in congressional elections and
therefore are not represented in Congress.
Besides these territories, there are also the Indian tribal reservations, namely
areas designated by the federal government for the use of American Indian
tribes, where the tribes generally settle and establish a tribal government. Many
of these areas were established by treaties between the federal government and
the Indian tribes. They are federal territories as a matter of Constitutional law
and are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department
91

of the Interior. Obviously, there are a lot of questions related to the allocation of
criminal and civil judicial jurisdiction as between federal authority and the
courts of the state on whose territory the reservation is located.
LEGAL ENGLISH WORKSHOP III
Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD
I. Answer the following questions:
1. How can you define the English monarch until Charles I?
2. When was the principle of the supremacy of Parliament formalized?
3. Which expression is used today to describe the activity of the monarch? What
does it mean?
4. List the duties of the monarch as established by the Royal Prerogative.
5. How is succession to the throne regulated?
6. How are the expenses of the Royal family financed?
7. Define the Commonwealth.
8. How is Parliament dissolved?
9. Which are the main roles of Parliament?
10. How many houses is Parliament composed of?
11. Which is the name given to the members of the House of Lords? Name the
various categories of peers.
12. Why was the reform of the House of Lords considered necessary?
13. What does the term MP stand for in relation to the members of the House of
Commons?
14. What disqualifies someone from being elected to the House of Commons?
15. What is the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons?
16. Describe the layout of the House of Commons.
17. What is the role of the whip in the House of Commons?
18. Define the Shadow Cabinet.
19. Define the functions of Parliament.
20. Enlarge upon the types of Bills that go through the British Parliament.
21. Describe the process a Bill goes through in order to become an Act of
Parliament.
22. What is the Executive?
23. Which are the conventions which bind the Cabinet members?
24. What are the main functions of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committees?
25. Define ministerial responsibility.
26. Define the role and functions of the Prime Minister.
27. Which executive powers originate in prerogative powers?
28. What is prerogative power?
29. What is the American Congress? Enlarge upon the House of Representatives
and the Senate.

92

30. Describe the process a Bill goes through in order to become an Act of
Congress.
31. Which is the legislative competence of Congress?
32. What is the American Executive made up of? Enlarge upon the functions of
the President.
33. How is the American President elected and removed?
34. Which is the government structure of the states of the Union?
II. Decide whether the statements below are true or false. If they are false
explain why.
1. The monarch is an integral part of the legislature, head of the judiciary,
commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Crown and the temporal head of
the established Church of England.
2. The Crown (the monarch and his/her government) symbolizes the fact that the
monarch is all-powerful.
3. The monarch does not need to be a member of the Church of England.
4. The Government, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister carry out the executive
functions in the name of the Crown as the monarch is the source of all executive
power.
5. The monarchs permission for Parliament to be dissolved is not necessary.
6. A hung Parliament is a Parliament with an established majority.
7. The Monarch is head of state in all Commonwealth countries.
8. The members of the House of Lords are known as peers.
9. Peers can debate and amend money bills, they cannot get involved in matters
of taxation and finance.
10. Each constituency in the UK is represented by several seats in the elections
for the House of Commons.
11. The Speaker of the House of Commons is responsible for parliamentary
discipline, keeping the agenda and deciding if a bill is a money bill or not.
12. MPs can be prosecuted for their declarations in Parliament.
13. The Shadow Cabinet actively participates in the activity of the government.
14. The House of Lords has the right to reject laws outright.
15. A Bill may go through a maximum of three readings before it becomes law.
16. The Cabinet includes only the principal ministers.
17. Ministers do not have ministerial responsibility.
18. The head of the Treasury is the Prime Minister.
19. The Prime Minister is directly elected by the voters.
20. The powers of the Prime Minister are written down in statute form.
21. The Executive must justify its actions by reference to a recognized
prerogative, to a statute or to common law.
22. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for three-year terms.
23. All the members of the Senate are elected during one single election process.
93

24. Both senators and representatives may propose bills.

25. The American President, as Chief of Government, has the sole responsibility
for the direction of the federal government.
26. The number of electors who elect the President of the USA is larger than the
sum of each states senators and representatives in Congress.
27. For a President to impeached, he must be convicted with a two-thirds
majority by the Senate.
III. Choose the right answer:
1. The Commonwealth is
a. a voluntary association of fifty-four states
b. a compulsory association of fifty-four states
c. a voluntary association of fifty-four states with the English monarch at its
head
d. a compulsory association of fifty-four states with the English monarch at its
head
2. As the Monarch is also Head of the Church of England and Scotland
a. the State and the church are not separate
b. the State and the church are separate
c. the church rules the State
d. the State rules the church
3. Each autumn the State Opening of Parliament takes place in the House
of Lords and the Monarch delivers
a. an address
b. a sermon
c. a prayer
d. a speech from the throne in which the major governmental policies are
outlined
4. The Royal Assent means that
a. the Prime Minister approves a parliamentary bill
b. the Monarch approves a parliamentary bill that has passed through the House
of Commons and the House of Lords
c. the first stage a bill goes through before becoming a law
d. no approval is necessary before a bill becomes a law
5. The prerogative of mercy is exercised by the Monarch
a. his/her own will
b. at random
c. on the advice of the appropriate minister
d. as a duty
94

6. The Crown lands

a. are the monarchs property
b. belong to the Crown in its public capacity, namely the State
c. is not the equivalent of an entailed estate
d. refers to the same thing as the Crown Estate
7. The British legislature is
a. the body of persons vested with power to make, amend and repeal laws
b. subject to the rule of the monarch
c. is constituted only of elected members
d. a body that is in session year-in-year-out
8. Parliament is dissolved
a. if an MP dies or resigns
b. if the Prime Minister dies or resigns during his/her term of office
c. if the monarch so decides
d. when its five-year life expires
9. The House of Lords, in its capacity of highest appeal court in the UK,
a. was able to overrule its own precedents
b. was unable to overrule its own precedents
c. fulfilled this role in its entirety
d. was a very rigid body
10. The Speaker of the House of Commons
a. takes part in the debates
b. is not impartial
c. votes only if there is a tie
d. is appointed
IV. Read the text below. Select the best contextual definition for the bolded
terms and provide their Romanian equivalents:
'A coronation is a nation's birthday," wrote the great patriot historian Arthur
Bryant in the official guide to Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, "a nation is a
union in both space and time. We are as much the countrymen of Nelson,
Wesley and Shakespeare as of our own contemporaries. Our queen is the symbol
of that union in time." Thus the official tone was set: the June 1953 coronation
of the new Elizabeth was not just a moment to anoint a monarch, but to
rededicate a nation to its historic purpose. The symbolism of coronation
provided a golden opportunity to reaffirm the magic of monarchy, revel in the
blessed sweep of British history, and spiritually rejuvenate a war-weary people.
95

As the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, contentedly put it: "The
country and the Commonwealth last Tuesday were not far from the Kingdom of
Heaven." Yet, despite all the medieval mummery and consecrated oil of the
Westminster Abbey service, it would be wrong to regard June 1953 as a moment
of backward-looking indulgence, an Establishment answer to the modernism of
the Festival of Britain. Instead, with its live TV coverage and deft manipulation
of the young Queen's image, it was a vehicle to upgrade the Windsor brand and
to focus on the postwar future. To cap it all, by more than happy coincidence, on
coronation day itself came news of Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay's ascent
of Everest. It was too good to be true. "Be Proud of Britain on this Day," ran the
Daily Express headline. For the spirit of the age was clear: the young Queen
offered Britain (but principally England) another go at the golden rule of
Elizabeth I. "It is our hope that Her Majesty may live long and happily and that
her reign may be as glorious as that of her great predecessor Queen Elizabeth I,"
announced Clement Attlee on behalf of the Labour party. "Let us hope we are
witnessing the beginning of a new Elizabethan Age no less renowned than the
first." Yet if Elizabeth I had built an empire, the young Queen was already
presiding over its rapid dismantling. In the House of Commons, Tory MP
Bernard Braine thought "the old Elizabethan age was great precisely because the
spirit of adventure led great men in little ships to sail into the unknown". That
vision now had to be revived among the "simple, backward, unsophisticated
peoples" of the British Dependencies. However, those poor benighted souls
had other ideas: between 1945 and 1965, the number of people living under
British colonial rule shrank from 700 million to five million as the empire
melted away. The 1948 British Nationality Act had inaugurated modern,
multicultural Britain. And with the British monarch no longer head of state in
Ireland, it was in vain that the romantic old colonialist Winston Churchill argued
for the traditional coronation script of "the Imperial Crown of Great Britain,
Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas". Instead, the proclamation
was changed to "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth," reflecting Elizabeth II's passion for the
Commonwealth and its status as the post-imperial club. Yet if the
Commonwealth was sanctified by the coronation, the Mother Country felt less
secure. For all the inclusion of Union symbols within the ceremony, the
backdrop to June 1953 was growing Scottish nationalism and discontent with
the title of Queen Elizabeth II (Scotland had never had a Queen Elizabeth I). The
natural, instinctive, 1950s sense of British nationhood forged through two
world wars, a Protestant faith and an imperial project which suffocated the
tensions of internal UK differentiation would not see out the second
Elizabeth's reign. Yet one of the few symbols to unite the nation remained the
monarchy. Even if the coronation was itself, as David Cannadine put it, "a
cavalcade of impotence" and palliative to the loss of world-power status, the
show successfully rebooted the House of Windsor. Much was made of the royal
96

couple's modernity (the aeroplanes, radio and television), and the young Queen's
femininity, able to juggle children and a handbag, along with the crown of state
and orb and sceptre. It certainly inspired the future Mrs Thatcher. "Women can
AND MUST play a leading part in the creation of a glorious Elizabethan
era," the young Margaret Roberts wrote on the eve of coronation. "Why not a
woman chancellor or a woman foreign secretary?" Or, indeed, prime minister
alongside Queen. Of course, there were concerns about the cost of the occasion
amid a huge budget deficit on the back of the Korean war, but the minister in
charge was adamant. As the postwar realities of Britain's diminished place in the
world started to dawn, the coronation of Elizabeth II offered one final testament
to our unique sense of national purpose. The crowning of the beautiful Queen
saw England as Israel once more: a country gifted a special, Protestant, imperial
place in the world. "A fair and youthful figure, princess, wife and mother, is the
heir to all our traditions and glories," as Winston Churchill so poetically put it,
"and to all our perplexities and dangers never greater in peacetime than now. She
is also heir to all our united strength and loyalty That it should be a golden
age of art and letters we can only hope but it is certain that if a true and lasting
peace can be achieved an immense and undreamed of prosperity, with culture
and leisure even more widely spread can come to the masses of the people."
This successful conjoining of monarchy to the masses would be the story of
Queen Elizabeth II's reign. And her great ability has been to manage it over 60
years of such profound and awesome change. (The Guardian, 31 May 2013)
1. coronation: a) the ceremony of crowning a sovereign or a sovereigns
consort:; b) the ceremony of appointing a sovereign; c) the act of designating a
sovereign
2. Queen: a) a woman or thing regarded as the finest or most outstanding in a
particular sphere or group; b) a woman or girl chosen to hold the most important
position in a festival or event; c) the female ruler of an independent state,
especially one who inherits the position by right of birth
3. to anoint a monarch: a) smear or rub with oil, typically as part of a religious
ceremony; b) ceremonially confer divine or holy office upon (a priest or
monarch) by smearing or rubbing with oil; c) nominate or choose (someone) as
successor to or leading candidate for a position
4. monarchy: a) a form of government with a monarch at the head; b) a state
that has a king; c) the monarch and royal family of a country:
5. Commonwealth: a) a self-governing state, usually with a republican system
of government; b) the association of independent states that were once ruled by
Britain; c) the period between 1649-1660 when there was a republican
government in England
6. Establishment : a) the action of establishing something or being established;
b) a marriage; c) a group in a society exercising power and influence over
matters of policy, opinion, or taste, and seen as resisting change:

97

7. Labour Party: a) a major left-of-centre British political party that since the
Second World; b) the Liberal Party c) the trade union movement at the end of
the 19th century
8. House of Commons: a) the upper house of the British Parliament b) the
lower chamber of the British Parliament, with elected members; c) the house of
the British Parliament with unelected members
9.Tory
MP:
a)
an advocate of conservative principles; one opposed
to reform or radicalism;
b)
a person who supported the British cause in the American Revolution; a loyalist;
c) a member of the Conservative Party in Great Britain who is also a member of
Parliament
10. British dependencies : a) a territory that is under the sovereignty of the
British Crown but does not form part of the UK; b)a territory that is part of the
UK; c) territories inside the territorial scope of the UK
11. crown of state: a) the monarchy or reigning monarch; b) A wreath of leaves
or flowers, especially that worn as an emblem of victory in ancient Greece or
Rome; c) a circular ornamental headdress worn by a monarch as a symbol of
authority, usually made of or decorated with precious metals and jewels.
12. orb: a) a spherical object or shape; b) a golden globe surmounted by a cross,
forming part of the regalia of a monarch; c) a celestial body
13. sceptre: a) an ornamented staff carried by rulers on ceremonial occasions as
a symbol of sovereignty; b) imperial power; c) authority
14. Prime Minister: a) the chief minister of a ruler; b) the official head of a
cabinet or ministry. ; c) the head of an elected government; the principal minister
of a sovereign or state
15. Israel: a) the Jewish people ; b) a people chosen by God; c) kingdom in
ancient Palestine comprising the lands occupied by the Hebrew people;
established ab 1025 B.C.
16. heir to: a) a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that
persons death; b) a person who inherits and continues the work of another
predecessor; c) a person or group considered as inheriting a tradition
V. Translate the text into Romanian
VI. Find the correct definition of the legal terms below and provide their
Romanian equivalents:
office of state; annuity; dominion; Law Lords; life of a Parliament;
parliamentary bill; Royal Prerogative; Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council; secret ballot; universal suffrage; sanction of Parliament; White
Paper; Green Paper; affirmative majority vote; statutory procedure;
collective responsibility; servants of the Crown; secondary legislation;
substantive regulations; Acts of State ; Congress; congressional district;
98

(the) principle of proportionality; period of service; staggered election; vote

of no confidence; impeachment; advisor to the President; Joint Chiefs of
Staff; local government.
1.The administration of a particular town, county, or district, with
representatives elected by those who live there
2. a position of authority or service, typically one of a public nature, especially
with high level government institutions
3. a report issued by the government as a statement of government policy on a
particular problem, often setting out proposals for changes to legislation for
discussion before a Bill is drafted
4. the number of years at the end of which a parliament expires
5. law made by an executive authority under powers given to them by primary
legislation in order to implement and administer the requirements of that
primary legislation
6. military advisory group composed of the chiefs of staff of the army and air
force, the chief of naval operations, and sometimes the commandant of the
marine corps
7. a sum of money payable yearly or at other regular intervals
8.
harmonious arrangement or relation of parts or elements within a whole (as in a
design)
9. a vote showing that a majority does not support the policy of a leader or
governing body
10. a self-governing colony of the British Empire
11. more than half of the votes cast by the persons legally entitled to vote and
which are in favour of a motion
12. members of the House of Lords who sit as the highest court of appeal
13. a constitutional convention in governments that members of
the Cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet
14. a court made up of members of the House of Lords and others, which
considers appeals made to the Sovereign in Council concerning decisions of
some Commonwealth courts outside the UK
15.
the
duration
of
employment in duties or work for another, as for a government
16. proposal for a new law, or a proposal to change an existing law that is
presented for debate before Parliament
17. procedure to remove from office a public official accused of misconduct
18. any person in the employment of the Crown
19. executive act exercising the sovereign power of a country which cannot be
challenged by the courts
20. a secret vote

99

21. regulation which establishes principles and creates and defines limitations
under which society is governed
22. the elected federal body in the USA, formed of a lower and upper house
23. the right of almost all adults to vote in political elections
24. senior staff members in the Executive Office of the President of the United
States, who are not part of the United States Cabinet.
25. the right of the sovereign, which in British law is theoretically subject to no
restriction
26. system of electing a percentage of the members of an elected body, usually
one third, every one or two years
27. a discussion document from the government on possible proposals for a new
law
28. a district(constiutuency) in a US state that can elect one representative to the
House of Representatives
29. a procedure implemented by virtue of power conferred by an Act of
Parliament
30. official approval given by Parliament
VII. Use the correct verb in the list below to complete the V + NP/PP
collocations. Provide the Romanian equivalents of these collocations. Use
the collocations in sentences of your own.
act; stand (2); prorogue; confer; elevate; take; command; seek (2); retain;
delay; introduce; make; do; authenticate; countersign; bear; attend;
conduct; enter(2) ; attain; cast; enjoy; sign.
1. ______ an international agreement; 2. ______ upon the advice of the
ministers; 3. ______ an official document ; 4. ______ legislation ; 5. _______
the Prime Ministers Question Time;6. _____ criminal proceedings; 7. _____
legally responsible in person ; 8. ______ over ceremonial occasions; 9. _______
eligibility age; 10 _______ to the House of Lords;11. ________ reelection;12.
_____ a copy; 13 _______ Parliament; 14. _______ equal representation;15.
_______ an oath of allegiance; 16. _______ into law; 17. _______ a Bill; 18.
_______ a majority in the House of Commons; 19. ____ dissolution; 20.
_______ honours; 21. ______ the good will of the House;22. _______ a nolle
prosequi; 23. _____ an act on behalf of the Crown; 24. ______ a seal; 25. _____
for reelection; 26. ___ a vote.
VIII. Read the following text and (i) select the terms referring to the British
Parliament, (ii) provide their definitions; (iii) provide their Romanian
equivalents:
There are few figures in public life who can rival Lord Wakeham as a
practitioner of the art of the possible. Formerly Margaret Thatchers chief whip,
100

he has carved himself a comfortable niche as a fixer to the establishment. At any

rate, not for nothing did Tony Blair appoint him Chairman of the Commission
on reform of the House of Lords. As expected, Lord Wakehams commission
came up with some proposals that were far from the democratic ideal, with only
a comparatively small proportion of peers being elected. Now, however, the
Government is proposing a degree of party patronage and control that appals
even this worldly Lord. When a man so at ease with the ways of power as Lord
Wakeham declares that a continuation of political patronage, whoevers cronies
they are, is unlikely to give the reformed second chamber the necessary political
authority to play an effective role and that he is fearful of the consequences,
it is time to sit up and take notice. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that
Mr Blair and his government are so reluctant to be held accountable for their
actions that they want to foist upon us a system of governance based on a
mixture of inheritance and appointment virtually unknown outside primitive
tribal society. The core of the Governments unease about electing the Lords is
that granting them anything like a democratic mandate would mean that they
would compete with the Commons. There is a simple answer to this. Why not
ask the Lords to do the things that the House of Commons doesnt want to do.
Quite a few functions fall into this category. The Lords could be asked to
scrutinize those aspects of government that the Commons id disinclined to look
at. They could, for example, have a remit to investigate potentially disastrous
projects before they happen rather than leave things until the dust settles, as is
the customs of the Commons Public Accounts Committee. Most usefully of all,
the prime minister could be asked to attend a special select committee to
examine the work of 10 Downing Street, again a role the Commons has chosen
not to take up. But what is to stop the new elected Lords simply becoming
another bunch of whip-driven party hacks? It is not inevitable. They could, for
example, be elected on a 15-year non-renewable basis, which might well make
for independence of outlook. Or they might be indirectly elected by some form
of electoral college. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party is in such a
state of desuetude that it cannot come up with its own policy, even though
reform of the Lords has been on the agenda for fife years or more. What the
Tories, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour dissenters are right about is that it
is unacceptable for the new Lords to be just a club of cronies appointed by the
prime minister. It is even more wrong that such a major constitutional change to
be based on such a narrow party base. The Governments miserable proposals
deserve to fail. (The Independent, 10 January 2002)
IX. Fill in the blanks in the sentences below with the following words
extracted from the text above:
deserve; fail; whip; appoint; cronies; compete; attend; overcome; policy;
agenda; dissenters
101

1. The trade-unions called a strike to force the government to change its

_______ . 2. If the government _____ to implement this constitutional reform, it
will have to change its ____ . 3. Though he was ill for six months, my friend
Paul worked hard and managed to ______ his handicap. He really ___ to get
his degree. 4. `Do all party members agree with the leaders proposals?` `Not all;
a few ______ expressed their disagreement and they didnt _______ the
meeting. 5. Its a scandal that the Prime Minister should _____ his ______ . All
the applicants should be able to _______ on a fair basis. 6. The _____ threatened
to expel an MP from the party, if he didny obey the party guidelines.
X. Provide the Romanian equivalents of the following English terms:
constituency; to call an election; devolution; cronism; backbencher;
frontbencher; Mace; to summon Parliament; by-election; electoral roll; open
vote; debates on the floor of the House; to be in session; to establish armed
forces; naturalization of foreigners.
XI. Provide the English equivalents of the following Romanian terms:
puterea executiva; a alcatui cabinetul; Ordinul Jartierei; a ceda/retroceda
teritorii; a urma la tron; a se urca pe tron; casa regala; lista civila; a suspenda o
sedinta din proprie initiativa; a-si inceta activitatea la sfarsitul mandatului
(despre parlament); durata legislaturii parlamentului este de 4 ani; a abroga o
lege; a verifica politica guvernamentala; a garanta drepturile individuale; a
detine o functie de judecator la o instanta superioara; inaltii prelati membri ai
Cameri Lorzilor; lord laic, membru al camerei Lorzilor; titlu nobiliar acordat pe
viata, pozitie pe viata in Camera Lorzilor; decanul unei camere legislative; falit
neexonerat
XII. Match the terms that indicate various forms of State systems with the
correct definition; provide their equivalents in Romanian. Give examples of
states that illustrate these concepts:
peoples republic; colony; dictatorship; constitutional monarchy; republic;
presidential republic; parliamentary republic; absolute monarchy;
monarchy; federal republic, confederation; dominion; principality;
theocratic state (theocracy) ; sovereign state; nation state; empire;
democracy; oligarchy; dependency
1. a system of government where an executive branch is led by a president who
serves as both head of state and head of government

102

2. state under the control of a Church or state-sponsored religion; a form of

government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by
officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
3. a government run by only a few, often the wealthy
4. a form of government in which the right to govern is held by the majority of
citizens within a country or a state
5. a type of government where absolute sovereignty is allotted to an individual
or a small clique
6. a state founded and controlled by a national Communist party
7. a state with a monarch at the head
8. a type of republic that operates under a parliamentary system of government
where the executive branch (the government) derives its legitimacy from and is
accountable to the legislature (the parliament). People elect their representatives
in a national legislature, and the legislature then chooses its own executive from
the dominant political party.
9. the authority of a state to govern itself or another state
10. federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation is
the central government.
11. a dependent territorial entity subject to the sovereignty of an independent
country, but considered part of that country for purposes of relations with third
countries
12. a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by
factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent
13. a form of government in which a monarchacts as head of state within the
parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or
blended constitution
14. a more or less permanent union of states with some or most political power
vested in a central authority
15. a state ruled by a prince
16. a country that was part of the British Empire but had its own government
17. a state in which the absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political
power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution
18. an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an
oligarchy, or a sovereign state
19. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected
representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president
20. a country or province controlled by another
XIII. Fill in the blanks in the text below using the terms given in the list:
law; convention; rule; practice; provision; bill; Act of Parliament; legal
enactment; statute law; legislation

103

A proposal of law, or _______ only becomes a/an ______ called a/an

_________ when all its _______ have been approved by the Queen in
Parliament. Many ________ of English constitutional ________ do not derive
from _______ or common law, but are political _______ called ________ which
have the force of law.
XIV. Fill the blanks in the sentences below with words derived from the
following words: legislate, succeed, constitution, represent, qualify, judiciary,
guard, supreme; member, implement
1. Parliament is the _______ organ in Britain.
2. The Channel Islands an the Isle of Man possess their own ancient _______ .
3. The Parliament at Westminster ________ for the UK.
4. The European Communities Acts 1972 provides for the subordinate ________
.
5. Is the UK ________ composed of the House of Lords and the House of
Commons?
6. The ________ to the throne can only be altered by common consensus of the
member states of the Commonwealth which owe allegiance to the Crown.
7. The monarchy in the UK is now a ________ monarchy.
8. Prerogative rights are of legislative, executive and _____ character.
9. The Privy Council conducts much of its business in committees at which the
Monarch cannot _________ be present.
10. The House of Commons is an elected and _____ body.
11. The law related to Parliamentary elections states that any British subject
aged 21, not otherwise ____ may be elected as a Member of Parliament
12. The Speaker of the House of Commons is the traditional ____ of the rights
and privileges of the House of Commons.
13. The ______ of the UK Parliament is probably the most basic principle of
British ______ law.
14. Acts of Parliament do not bind its ______ in the manner of form of their
legislation.
15. The European Communities Acts 1972 made ______ changes to enable the
UK to comply with the obligations entailed by _____ of the European
Communities.
16. The European Communities Act 1972 provides for subordinate _______ in
connection with the ______ of obligations derived from the European
Communities Treaties.
XV. Fill the blanks in the sentences below using words from the following
list: originate; dissolution; impartially; fundamentals; ill-defined; removal;

104

directorship; disapproval, prime-ministerial. Translate the sentences into

Romanian:
1. The independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers are ______ of
many modern constitutional systems.
2. The case ______ in a disagreement between the two men.
3. He held the _______ of the company for seven years.
4. A General Election was called after the _____ of Parliament.
5. The Commission must hear the arguments for both sides to the dispute and
reach its decision _______ .
6. In the UK, _______ powers are defined and regulated by constitutional
conventions, not by statute law.
7. When boundaries between States are ____, there is usually trouble.
8. The ________ of civil servants from office for political reasons is not possible
in the UK.
9. By convention the Sovereign cannot refuse to give the Royal Assent to a Bill
even in case of strong personal ______ .
XVI. Translate into Romanian:
There are two main types of electoral systems in the UK: First Past the Post
(FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR)
First Past the Post (FPTP)
FPTP is the voting system used for the election of MPs to 'seats' in the UK
Parliament. It is a system in which the 'winner takes all' and usually gives a clear
majority both at constituency and national level. This means that a candidate in a
constituency only needs one more vote than the nearest rival to win the seat.
Similarly, political parties only need to win one more seat in the House of
Commons to have a majority.
Advantages of FPTP
There is very little chance of extremist parties being elected to Parliament under
FPTP because they are unlikely to gain enough votes in any one
constituency.Generally the results of elections using FPTP can be calculated
quickly. When necessary, this makes the transfer of power from one party to
another much easier.
Disadvantages of FPTP
The main criticism of FPTP is that the number of votes cast for a party in
general elections is not accurately reflected in the number of seats won. An
example of this was the 1997 election when the Conservatives gained 18% of
the vote in Scotland but not one seat. This is mirrored at constituency level,
where the winning candidate may have received only one third of the votes cast.
Indeed, a government may be elected on a minority vote, as happened in 1974
105

when Labour won the general election on the number of seats gained but the
Conservatives had a larger share of the vote across the country.Smaller parties
are not fairly treated under FPTP. Although they may have a sizeable national
support across the country, they do not get a proportional number of MPs
because there are not enough votes concentrated in constituencies to let them
win seats.FPTP also encourages tactical voting. This means voting for a party,
other than your preferred party, to prevent another party from being elected. An
example of this would be when a Labour supporter in a marginal Liberal/
Conservative seat votes Liberal Democrat in order to keep the Conservatives
from winning.Another disadvantage of FPTP can occur in marginal
constituencies, where voters tend to change their party loyalty from election to
election, and among 'floating' or 'swing' voters, who have no firm party loyalty.
The outcome of an election can be decided on the voting patterns in these
situations, even although the constituents may number only a tiny proportion of
the electorate.
Proportional Representation (PR)
There are a number of systems that use PR such as the Single Transferable Vote
(STV) and the Regional/National Lists. Some hybrid systems combine FPTP
and a form of PR such as the Additional Member System (AMS). The AMS
system is used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, where voters can vote for
single candidates in their constituencies but also for candidates from regional
'lists' put forward by each party. If there is a discrepancy between the percentage
of seats the party has won and the percentage of votes cast, the seats are 'topped
up' from the regional list.
Advantages of PR
In PR systems there are no wasted votes in elections. As a result, there is a far
greater degree of proportionality; the number of seats more accurately reflects
the number of votes cast for each party.In the 2003 Scottish Parliament results
Labour did better than the other parties, with 50 of the 129 seats and just over
33% of the constituency vote and 29.3% of the regional list vote. The SNP got
27 seats and over 20% of the vote, the Conservatives got 18 seats with just over
15% of the vote, the Greens won 7 seats and the Scottish Socialists won 6 seats.
The Liberal Democrats came fourth with 17 seats but remained part of the
government in coalition with Labour.
Disadvantages of PR
A criticism of PR is that, in elections, voters do not vote for coalition
governments. The compromises that are made between politicians from different
parties in coalition can sometimes be without public backing. Small parties in
coalition without a majority vote from the electorate can become 'king-makers'.
This means that small parties can have unfair power over the larger parties by
threatening to withdraw from coalitions.In the regional or national list systems,

106

party leaders may draw up lists of only like-minded candidates which may
disadvantage minority groups within a party. Although there is a larger than
average number of women in the Scottish Parliament, there are few
representatives from other groups such as ethnic minorities or the disabled. This
is not desirable for effective democracy.
Voting behaviour is the way in which people tend to vote. Voting is influenced
by a number of different factors. The most important are: social class,
geography, age and background. issue voting , media
Social class
When voting analysis began in 1945 it became clear that social class was the
most important factor in the way people traditionally voted. People tended to
vote according to their natural class. This is not a perfect classification but will
explain the social class influences on voting behaviour: A - upper class, B middle class, C1 - upper working class, C2 - lower working class, D/E temporarily or long-term unemployed. From the 1940s to the 1960s the
majority of the electorate were strongly linked to one or other of the two main
political parties. Although there are always exceptions, party loyalty closely
corresponded to social class. C1 and C2 voters tended to vote for the Labour
Party and B voters tended to vote for the Conservative Party. In the mid 1960s,
B voters supporting Conservative and C1 and 2 voters supporting Labour
accounted for 64% of the total vote. But the 1970s saw a decline in the number
of people voting according to their natural class; this is referred to as class
dealignment. By 1979, this had fallen to 57% of the total vote and the decline
continued throughout the 1980s confirming that the British public were moving
away from voting according to class. One explanation for this is that the
electorate was becoming better educated through more access to the media,
which gave increasingly more information on politicians and parties. Also, in the
1980s and early 1990s, more C2 voters tended to vote Conservative. In the 1987
General Election, 42% of C2 voters supported the Conservative Party while only
35% voted for Labour. This was a total reversal of previous voting behaviour
and was, partly, attributed to the policies of the Prime Minister, Margaret
Thatcher. The move away from voting according to class could also be due to a
change in the size of the classes. Since the 1970s, the number of manual workers
has fallen from nearly 50% of the population to just 33%. This is because of the
changes in employment patterns, educational opportunities and the rising
standard of living. However, although it appears that voters are moving away
from their natural class, statistics suggest that voting behaviour and class are still
linked to some extent. In 2001, the highest social class, AB, voted 40% in favour
of the Conservatives - less than in previous elections, but still a strong vote.
Almost half of the working classes still voted Labour. The transfer of working
class votes to Conservative and upper class votes to Labour might also be due to
the fact that New Labour policies are moving further to the right. Although the
107

elections in 1997 and 2001 saw Labour regaining C1 and C2 voters, this trend
may be attributed to the collapse of the Conservative Party. It is said that
opposition parties do not win elections; governments lose them. In the 2010
General Election the Conservatives gained from all groups with the exception of
the lowest class DE which stayed Labour. ABC1 (grouped together) had a 39%
vote for the Conservatives while Labour had 27%. In the C2 class 37% voted
Conservative compared to 29% for Labour, and in the DE group 31% voted
Conservative and 40% Labour.
Geography
There is a consistent north/ south divide in voting behaviour in the UK. The
north (Wales is also strongly Labour) tends to favour Labour and the south
favours the Conservative Party. In 2001, the southern part of England voted
56.3% for the Conservative Party whilst the north of England, Scotland and
Wales voted 82.4% in favour of the Labour Party. This pattern may be linked to
the industrial past of the UK when heavy industry and links to trade unions were
concentrated in Central Scotland, the North of England and Wales. In 2010,
Labour lost support in Scotland and Wales, generally to the Lib Dems or the
SNP.
Age and background
The writer G.B. Shaw once wrote that 'If you are not a socialist by the time you
are 25, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative by the time you are 35,
you have no head'. There is a link between age and party support, although it is
not easy to say why this is. Those under 35 tend to vote Labour and the
Conservative vote increases with age. This may be because Labour was
traditionally seen to be the idealistic party vote, looking for a more egalitarian
society. There is also a link between ethnicity and voting behaviour. The Labour
party has tended to benefit from the ethnic minority vote, especially the AfroCaribbean vote. This may be because, in the past, Labour policies have seemed
more sympathetic towards ethnic minorities.
Issue Voting
Public opinion is also influenced by what the parties publish in their manifestos declarations of what they intend to do if they win the election. It is unlikely that
a party which says that it will increase taxes will gain many voters, even if the
money is to improve education. The economy, health, education and crime
always feature highly on the minds of voters at election time. How a party
addresses these and other important issues can either gain or lose them votes.
Media
Newspapers, magazines, television and radio also influence voting behaviour.
The media is the means whereby voters form opinions on the ability of political
108

leaders and whether the Government is doing a good job or not. While few will
admit it, people are influenced incidentally by the editorial stance of a
newspaper they read. People tend to buy the same newspaper regularly, often for
reasons other than its political stance. But they will be influenced by its editorial
opinions. Outside election times, most readers will not realise that the Daily
Record favours the Labour Party and that the Daily Mail favours the
Conservative Party.It is assumed that radio and television coverage of political
issues is impartial. But, despite the most professional reporting, sometimes the
natural inclinations of individuals can seem to come out during an interview. All
party leaders have at some time complained about the BBC, which suggests that
it is impartial in its coverage. Many people believe that TV is more important
than newspapers as fewer people buy newspapers now. However, politics can
easily be avoided on TV by simply changing the channel. There is also seen to
be a danger that the ownership of the media is being concentrated in too few
hands. News International, owned by Rupert Murdoch, controls a large number
of news and media organisations. There are concerns that, as a result, he is able
as an individual to shape public opinion and influence voting behaviour. In the
run up to the 2010 UK General Election, the Sun newspaper ran the headline
Labours Lost it, letting readers know it has switched its support from the
Labour Party to the Conservative Party. The Sun has the largest circulation
figures in the UK and famously supported the Labour Party in 1997.The Internet
now plays an important role in influencing voters. Like newspapers, websites
are allowed to show bias. Politicians and political parties are keen to use
websites, blogs, wikis, podcasts or having listings on social networking websites
like facebook and twitter as a way of reaching voters, especially young voters.
Young voters are less likely to vote. Voter apathy is a major obstacle for all
political parties and politicians alike, with only 61% of voters turning out to vote
in the 2005 General Election.
(adapted
from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/modern/uk_gov_politics/elect_vote/revisi
on/2/)
XVII. Translate into English:
A. Principiu fundamental al statului de drept, separaia puterilro i datoreaz
succesul faptului c ofer o alternativ la guvernarea despotic, n care ntreaga
putere este concentrat n mna unei singure autoriti (de natura individual sau
colectiv). Presupune o distribuie a puterii, pentru a fi exercitat, unor instane
diferite i independente nzestrate cu atribute i prerogative de conducere. n
cadrul competenelor ce le sunt conferite, fiecare putere (legislativ, executiv i
judectoreasc) deine i exercit o serie de atribuii n afara oricrei imixtiuni
reciproce. Potrivit principiului separaiei puterilor, nici una dintre cele trei puteri
109

nu prevaleaza asupra celeilalte, nu se subordoneaz una alteia i nu i asuma

prerogative specifice celorlalte.Cu toate acestea, n practic, separaia puterilor
nu a fost niciodat (i nici nu ar trebui s fie) una perfect, absolut deoarece ar
fi condus la un blocaj instituional. Rigiditatea nelegerii i aplicrii acestui
principiu n cadrul raporturilor instituionale ar produce dezordine i
dezechilibre, lsnd fru liber tendinelor naturale de tip autoritarist. De aceea,
n funcionarea sistemului politic, principiul separaiei puterilor n stat ia forma
delimitrii unor autoriti publice independente (una fa de cealalt), cu
prerogative diferite (prin care se realizeaz activiti specifice), dar i a
colaborrii dintre puteri dublat de controlul reciproc. n faa tendinelor de
autonomizare i autoritarism ale unei puteri s-a contrapus practica colaborrii i
echilibrul puterilor. (adpated from http://www.infopolitic.ro/studii/teoria-sipractica-separatiei-puterilor-in-stat-3.html)
B. Faptul ca Romania a luat locul SUA in ceea ce priveste "posibilitatile" si a
devenit tara "tuturor posibilitatilor" este deja axioma si nu mai necesita
explicatii. Ca aceste posibilitati se materializeaza in aspecte negative si nu
pozitive este un postulat.Daca ne uitam la diferite statistici, Romania bate de
departe toate tarile europene si chiar asa zisele tari "bananiere" la capitolele
saracie, nivel scazut de trai, grad de insatisfactie, investitii, lipsa de incredere,
nerespectatrea legilor, salarii, pensii. Pana si la intrarea in Spatiul Shengen
suntem printre ultimii si suntem amanati si impinsi inapoi.Cu toate astea,
carmuitorii nu scapa nicio ocazie sa isi dea cu stangul in dreptul, sa loveasca in
populatie si sa isi apere scaunele si salariile, drepturile si avantajele, dand sau
lasand sa treaca legi care intorc pana si legile bunei cuviinte pe dos. Si prin
carmuitori includ toata clasa politica si tot aparatul legislativ si executiv, care de
20 de ani incoace a adus tara in aceasta pozitie, care in Opozitie, care la Putere,
pe
rand,
dupa
cum
le-a
cazut
la
zar.
In ceea ce priveste principiile constitutionale, ca si alte prevederi ale
Constitutiei, ele sunt siluite pur si simplu fara jena, la drumul mare, in plina zi,
in
plina
strada
si
nimeni
nu
intervine.
De ce nu intervine? Pai daca un amarat s-ar lega de o fata pe strada si ar fluiera
admirativ dupa ea, politatiul sau comunitarul din colt sau intersectie s-ar sesiza
pe
loc
si
l-ar
taxa
pentru
haruire
sexual
In schimb, cand doamna Anastase numara oamenii din sala cu ochii in hartii,
domnul Basescu nu se amesteca, respectand separarea puterilor in stat. Curtea
Constitutionala da "NUP" pentru ca nu are atributiunea de a numara numarul de
parlamentari, ci doar de a constata daca s-a numarat bine atunci cand a inceput
sedinta. Deci nu se poate angaja intr-o activitate care nu ii intra in atributiuni.
Scrie undeva ca onorata CC are atributiuni de numarare? Nu! Atunci nu numara,
punct. Dar cand un judecator la Valcea da castig de cauza unui cetatean pentru
ca i s-a comis o nedreptate, nedreptate care incalca legile europene, Ministerul
Justitiei trimite repede repede o comisie sa cerceteze cine e persoana care a
indraznit sa dea un "exemplu negativ" si sa dea o sentinta contra
110

"curentului".Cand o Curte de Apel da dreptate unor oameni in apararea unor

drepturi salariale promise, dar neprimite, decizie definitiva si irevocabila,
Guvernul da repede un capat de lege prin care amana aplicarea sentintei peste
"n" ani, cand ei nu vor mai fi la putere si poate o parte din petenti vor disparea
pe cale naturala. Si ca nu cumva sa se mai trezeasca cu astfel de surprize si
pentru a pune in stare de "ilegalitate" orice judecator caruia s-ar putea sa ii mai
dea prin cap sa dea o hotarare definitiva si irevocabila cu aplicare din momentul
anuntarii sentintei, uite ca Guvernul da o noua Ordonanta de Urgenta, Nr. 113
din 8 decembrie 2010, prin care amana orice plata a eventualelor datorii sau
drepturi catre cetateni. Cum e cu neamestecul in treburile instantelor? Cum e cu
separarea puterilor in stat? Cum e cu drepturile omului? Mai conteaza? Ce face
Opozitia? Pai e in vacanta. Si-a facut datoria, a mai trantit doua motiuni pierdute
cu brio, ne-au asomat, acum isi vad de sarbatorile de Craciun. Sa traiasca bine!
(adapted from http://www.ziare.com/ccr/decizii/opinii-romania-si-principiulsepararii-puterilor-in-stat-1064270)

111