Constitutional Law Quiz for Law Students

A rule that is not legally binding but is followed by convention and political agreement.

A rule that is legally binding and enforceable by the courts.

A type of legislation that deals with spending and revenue.

The Speaker of the House of Commons is not opposed in an election.

The House of Lords cannot block legislation that was in the winning party's election manifesto.

The monarch's approval is needed before a bill affecting the Crown or Royal Prerogative can be introduced in Parliament.

The process of a government's actions being legitimate if they are in line with the will of the people.

A distinction between what is (the 'is') and what ought to be (the 'ought to').

A constitutional convention is a non-legal, unwritten rule that governs political practices. It's based on shared understandings and expectations, not laws.

The court determined that unanimity was not a required convention for amending the Canadian Constitution. A substantial degree of provincial consent was sufficient.

The Court emphasized that conventions rely heavily on "general acquiescence." This means the actors involved must believe they're bound by the rule.

The court ruled that conventions require recognition by all parties. They must acknowledge the rule's existence and importance.

An understanding is a less formalized agreement between political players. It's a looser form of agreement than a convention.

The Court decided that a convention doesn't exist solely based on practice. It must be recognized by all parties involved.

The Court recognized the importance of the psychological element in conventions. It's not just about legal rules, but also the shared belief in them.

EU law applies directly in member states' legal systems. If an EU rule is clear and unconditional, it can be invoked before any national court and must be enforced by that court.

Member states have limited legislative power. Their courts are bound to prioritize EU law over national law, even if it's incompatible with their constitution.

The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972) allowed the UK to incorporate past and future EU rules into its legal system.

If UK law conflicts with EU law, English courts cannot apply UK law. They must give effect to EU law, even if the UK law is passed after the EU rule.

The House of Lords ruled in Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport that the UK must comply with EU law, even if it means overriding its own laws.

The EU's Common Fisheries Policy aimed to create a unified market for fisheries by granting free access to EU waters and providing funding for modernization.

In 1976, EU member states agreed to extend their fishing zones to 200 nautical miles from their coastlines.

The EU's Common Fisheries Policy introduced 'total allowable catches' to control fishing and protect fish stocks.

A widely accepted practice or custom followed by a group, often carrying a sense of obligation, but not formally codified in law.

The process by which a convention evolves and changes over time, often reflecting changes in societal values and priorities.

The acceptance of a new convention, often replacing an older one. This happens when a group recognizes the new approach as a better fit for current needs and feels obligated to follow it.

The British Prime Minister used to be able to sit in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. However, with the advent of universal suffrage, the convention shifted to favor the House of Commons as the seat of power.

The transfer of the power to amend Canada's constitution from the UK Parliament to the Canadian Parliament in 1982 marked a significant step in Canada's independence.

The federation of Canada in 1867 was founded on the principle of agreement between the founding provinces and between English and French-speaking populations, ensuring representation and respect for linguistic diversity.

A single strong precedent, supported by a valid reasoning, can be enough to establish a new, previously unknown convention.

Conventions, though not formally enforced by law, are powerful social norms that bind individuals and groups through shared understanding and expectations.

A legal declaration stating that a piece of legislation is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

A legal instrument allowing ministers to amend primary legislation to make it compliant with the ECHR using a streamlined process. This is an exception to the usual method of amending primary legislation.

A legal principle that states that when two laws conflict, the newer law takes precedence over the older law.

A legal principle suggesting that the Human Rights Act (HRA) cannot be overturned simply by passing new legislation that contradicts it. To repeal the HRA, a specific act of Parliament explicitly repealing it is required.

A legal doctrine acknowledging that certain statutes hold a special place in the UK constitutional framework, signifying their importance and influencing how they are interpreted and applied by courts.

A legal principle that applies to the Human Rights Act (HRA), allowing it to impact past, present, and future laws. This is unusual as laws usually apply only to situations arising after their enactment.

The process by which the UK courts can declare that a piece of legislation is incompatible with the ECHR. This can occur in cases brought before the court.

Courts that have the power to declare that a piece of legislation is incompatible with the ECHR.

The court must read any statute passed by Parliament in a way that upholds Human Rights Act (HRA) rights, if possible. This requires interpreting legislation to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Three types of interpretation are used - reading in, reading out, and reading down.

This involves adding words to a statute that aren't originally there to ensure it aligns with European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) principles. Think of it like filling in gaps to make the law fair.

This involves removing words from a statute to make it consistent with ECHR rights. Think of it like removing a conflicting part of the law to make it fair.

This means choosing an interpretation of a statute that is compatible with ECHR rights when multiple interpretations are possible. It's about finding a balance between the law and human rights.

The process of reading in, reading out, or reading down can be controversial, especially with primary legislation. It raises the question of whether courts are overstepping their power by changing the intended meaning of laws made by Parliament.

This is the landmark case that illustrated the principle of reading down. The case dealt with the interpretation of the Rent Act 1977 in light of the HRA. The court decided that the Act's definition of 'spouse' should be interpreted to include same-sex couples, ensuring non-discrimination.

If a Prerogative rule or subordinate legislation cannot be interpreted in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act, judges can quash it. This is done through a judicial review process.

The boundary between interpreting the existing law and creating new law is thin. Courts must be careful not to stray into the realm of law-making when interpreting statutes.