Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.

Migration For Canada By Immigration Overseas Experts

If you are a migrant and have done a bit of research by now, then you would be aware of the fact that migration is tangled process which involves myriad formalities that are to be followed for a proper migration. Also the whole process takes a very long duration to be completed. It can even take years for the authorities to properly process your application. Migration for Canada is also a very lengthy process and it also involves such complications. However these complications can be simplified if you are under the guidance of immigration consultants. Immigration consultant expertise in the department of handling complex migration laws with ease. They provide guidance to their customers for a hassle free migration. Apart from handling the immigration laws, they provide effectual services to their clients like medical insurance, pre-arranged accommodation and such others. These services facilitate the whole process of immigration.
Immigration consultants can really make a big difference in the way of your migration by saving your time and money. Still there is a thing you need to take caution of before taking assistance from this migration for Canada firms. There are many firms who will try to steal of your money without giving you proper services and by not carrying out your process even after charging you for those services. First they exorbitantly charge you then not provide you with satisfying results. For not to become a victim of such firms what you can do is check for the accreditation that the particular firm has received. Accreditations are a very important factor in deciding the reputation of any firm as they testify that the firm is a legally accepted enterprise. Then you can see for the experience they have in the migration domain. Experience means that they have handled many cases in that department and have the relevant expertise in tackling any complex situation which might arise.
Immigration Overseas is the firm which can be the end to your migration for Canada search. Here you will find some of the best and exclusive services that will make your migration experience memorable. This firm is affiliated from several government agencies like Migrants Agents Registration Authority (MARA), Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) & ICCRC. They have the experience of more than a decade, in which Immigration Overseas have handled complex migration cases.

Canada Immigration Consultant In Hyderabad

Immigration can be described as an act allows a foreigner to access the territory of overseas nations frequently and settle there permanently. The purpose of immigration can be different entirely depends on the intended applicants personal goal. However, they all have a common desire to get permanent residence in a foreign country. Meanwhile, the complication in immigration process certainly cant be ignored while explaining it one must be well aware of entire process to overcome this.

Planning for Canada immigration is often described as a great effort but, it is also need to be kept in mind that the country grants immigration visa only a limited number of people who successfully qualify the arduous eligibility criteria and capable of providing all the required documents. Those who are residing in Hyderabad, known for lavishing life and mouth watering meals, can reduce their stress at some extents by getting in touch with various immigration experts, while sucking into a stringent immigration work out. The Canada Immigration Consultant in Hyderabad is well identified for their quality of services at affordable costs.

The immigration experts in Hyderabad are known for providing the best assistance in choosing the right visa that suits clients work profile by focusing on various opportunities related to their occupation available in the country. Established a great goodwill in the market for catering desires of getting permanent resident in foreign countries of aspirants, the Canada Immigration Consultant in Hyderabad gave a reason to people to expand their horizon and dream more.

Being a great highlight of Immigration Consultant in Hyderabad, Abhinav, a well established name in immigration service, is one among a large number of immigration consultancies claimed immense success in fulfilling the desire of customers by making their task of obtaining immigration visa successful. Serving customers with full assurance of getting positive outcome is something projected as a great aspect of Abhinavs immigration service that allows clients to go through lots of immigration options in terms of countries like Australia, Canada, Denmark, UK, USA, Lithuania, Latvia and many more.

Ventured into the Immigration business in 1994, Abhinav tops in reliability and credited for offering immense success to the customers by offering the best solution. Apart from being the best Immigration Consultancy in Hyderabad, Abhinav established its branches in various other cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore, and highlighted success as a tradition of the consultancy.

Run by Mr. Ajay Sharma, identified as a Principle Immigration Consultant, Abhinav earned expertise in understanding the world of its clients and offers the best possible service by knowing their needs at reasonable costs. Moreover, those who are not able to decide which country will be the best destination or which visa program will be the most suitable for them, Abhinav serves them passionately by offering plethora of options unless they choose the best suitable option.

A Criminal Defence Lawyer Explains How To Get Your Charges Withdrawn Or Stayed

If you have been charged with a criminal offence in Canada, you may be wondering what the options are for getting rid of your charges. Obviously, you can make a plea or have a trial. However, in some cases, there are other options such as having your charges withdrawn by the crown attorney or stayed. This article explains what those two terms mean.

When can the crown withdraw a charge?

The crown attorney has the right to withdraw any criminal charge before an accused person enters a plea in open court.

If you have already entered a plea, the crown attorney can still withdraw a charge, but the court must also agree that withdrawing the charge is appropriate.

If the crown tries to relay the charge after the charge has been withdrawn, the court may intervene to ensure there is no abuse of process.

Any attempt to relay a criminal charge after a withdrawal by the crown attorney should be discussed with your defence lawyer because any decision by the crown to prosecute after a charge was withdrawn may require a legal application to be brought before the court.

What about a stay of the charges? The crown attorney may also stay the proceedings as of right at any time before a final judgment is rendered. A stay of proceedings stops the prosecution proceedings immediately. The court has no power to intervene to require the continuation of the prosecution. Once a stay of proceedings is entered, the accused can also automatically be released from detention.

A stay of proceedings is an excellent outcome for the accused person. However the crown does have the power to recommence the prosecution after a stay of proceedings has been entered. This is why you should discuss with your criminal defence lawyer whether or not it is possible to obtain a withdrawal of charges rather than a stay of proceedings.

Sometimes, an experienced defence lawyer can persuade the crown to agree to withdraw the charges rather than entering a stay of proceedings.

How is either a stay or a withdrawal achieved? In many cases, these excellent outomes ocur because your criminal defence lawyer has negotiated with the crown attorney. Under Canadian law, the Crown must not proceed with the case if there is “no reasonable prosect” succeeding at trial. In the right case, an experienced criminal defence lawyer can demonstrate to the crown attorney that the crown’s case is doomed and should not continue.

Canadians more positive towards immigration than US and Europe

According to a poll released last Thursday, Canadian attitudes toward immigration are hardening but Canada still remains more positive attitude as compared to other Western nations including the US and Europe.

The annual survey, done by a Washington-based think-tank, looked at public perception of a wide variety of immigration issues in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. And it maintains that Canada is the most welcoming nation to the immigrants who want to live and work in Canada.

Around two-thirds of Canadians agreed that people immigrating to Canada have been successfully integrated into their society. The statistics show that respondents who felt in 2010 that immigrants helped create jobs by establishing new businesses down is down from 75 per cent in 2009 to 67 per cent in 2010. And the proportion of Canadians who thought immigration “enriches” culture by bringing in new customs and ideas slipped from 65 to 60 per cent. However in both cases, the numbers were significantly higher than those from the US and Europe.

The majority of the survey respondents from the US (73%), the UK (70%), Spain (61%), France (58%), and the Netherlands (54%) believed that their government was doing a poor job in managing immigration. Only Canadians were split, with 48% feeling positive and 43% responding negatively about their government’s handling of immigration to Canada.

Delancey Gustin – the author of the 2010 Immigration Public Opinion Survey said that Canadians are quite positive about immigration and they seem to be less bothered by issues of immigrants taking away their jobs leading to lower wages. She also stated that Canadian government policies and more importantly Canadian geography drive public attitudes.

For further information and advice on obtaining a Canadian visa, contact Migration Expert by visiting Migration Expert is an online provider of visa and immigration advice and services. The Company has been operating since 2002 when it began its Australian visa services and has since helped people from all over the world apply for visas to Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Visa Application Service Advantages

Visa application has been a constant problem for people who love to visit other countries. One has to pass through a long process with proper legal documents and passports to apply for visas. Also the filling process at the immigration offices is not very easy because it takes days and days to get the approval for your visa application. So it`s up to you if you think that you are able to fill in your visa application on your own than you might have a lot of patience, but if you feel like it`s not your job and you need someone to do that for you than you should go for some specialists that can really help you, offering you a smaller possibility of failure or mistake.

Here is the solution to your problems; there are many places which are opened to provide such facilities to customers not only for Russian visas, but also for some other visas like French visa, Angola visa, Lebanon visa, Brazil Visa, Canada visa and many others. So what you have to do is simply connect to these sites and choose the location and type of visa you want for your trip, and they`ll ask you to fill in some details because they need to submit certain legal documents.

Now, your work will be done by professionals who can guarantee you quality. You`ll get the visa in the promised time, without going from one embassy to another, without waiting in long queues, without wasting your free time. Of course you have to pay a certain fee which can vary from one website to another, but you`ll see that you`ll be happy to pay this amount to keep your calm. If you have experienced this kind of experience you would understand that it is a small fee for your patience.

These sites offer comfort to their customers and provide them all kind of services related to visa. You`ll see that calling on these sites will be the best decision you have take. Moreover these websites will be available to you every day, 24 hours, so you can fill in the application form whenever you want from any part of the world, because all they created all the necessary conditions.

In conclusion, it`s better for you to take into account new options because in this way you`ll fasten the application process and you`ll get your visa on time, without losing your precious time, just sitting in front of your computer and deciding what is the best for you.

Are Royal Assent, Pardons And Prorogation Fact Or Legal Fiction

Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queens principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament.

A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarchs power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen. This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume The English Constitution:

…the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarchs supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehots claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act – as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queens representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queens name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queens pleasure (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the Queen in Council (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament. Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewans Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill.

On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a governments wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byngs 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground. Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlams controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place.

The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen must sign her own death-warrant; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in todays age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval.

Personal Injury Attorney-What Do They Do

This branch of law covers personal injuries and the person who handles these types of cases is called a personal injury attorney. They are the legal person that represents the injured person in the civil law system. If you have been injured by a person or company you are entitled to sue those who you believe caused the injury no matter how serious the injury is. In the United States if you have been injured by intentional or negligent actions you can sue them under a body of common law referred to as the tort law system. Civil law and tort law systems are designed specifically to put the injured person back into the same position they would have been in if they had not been injured. One example is if a person has been injured and is experiencing pain and suffering, has incurred medical expenses, and damages they can sue who caused this injury to recover money to pay for the expenses.

When you have been injured you will need to hire a personal injury lawyer who will take down all the information about the injury, what expenses are occurring now and if any will be occurring in the future, any pain and suffering now and in the future, loss wages if any, etc. Once the personal injury attorney has all the information they will file the papers that are required with the court to institute the impending lawsuit. Many times it is common for both parties to settle out of court during the litigation. If both parties cannot reach an agreeable settlement the case would go to trial.

Before the case gets to the personal injury litigation phase the attorney will help you, referred to as the plaintiff, prove how you were injured and how the person you are suing is responsible whether it was through intentional wrong or negligence on their part. Most attorneys in the United States and Canada work on a contingent fee basis which basically means that the attorney will only get paid if you win your case. When you win the personal injury lawyer will receive a percentage of the settlement you won. Personal injury attorneys may represent you if you have been injured as a result of medical malpractice, a slip-and-fall incident, car accident, or assault and battery. Once you have hired a personal injury lawyer they will take care of all the paperwork, any doctor visits they need you to go to, and any witness statements in regards to the injury.

Are you looking for a professional and experienced personal injury attorney? Hamilton & McInnis L.L.P. are among the leading lawyers San Diego and your case will be handled by an experienced partner in the firm. With extensive knowledge across a broad spectrum of practice areas.

Why Legal Advice Matters

Life is all about decisions! Our day to day life involves a lot of decision-making that could pertain to investments in property or financial products, filing income tax returns, matrimonial alliances, divorce, alimony, child support, adoption, separation, consumer matters, automobile claims, inheritance and many more. Anyone who is in the midst of taking a decision in any of the above matters must be well prepared. With easy access to information, things have become simpler; but without the support of a well-qualified and experienced legal advisor, one might not be able to use the available information in the most tactful manner.

Are we really adept at taking the right decision as and when required? Probably not! We need legal help in most matters. For instance, a person going through divorce would need suggestion on matters such as, alimony or child support. We need legal assistance in a multitude of matters. It is not always feasible to engage a different lawyer for each specialized area, as the expenses can be really high! In such cases, it makes more sense to get in touch with a law firm, which has expert lawyers in different verticals, on their panel. Like other professions, the legal profession is also highly specialized. A lawyer, who usually handles inheritance cases, might not be a good help in issues pertaining to business laws. Hence, it is essential to get appropriate legal help. A law firm usually gives access to specialised services of lawyers as per their domain expertise. Moreover, laws may vary from one region to another.

A legal advisor can offer apt legal assistance in all matters. It is always wise to hire a legal advisor for individuals and businesses. Engaging an efficient lawyer is a critical step in any business. It is important to consult a good business lawyer to get legal help in most aspects of a business. Whether it is basic compliance, copyright issues, corporate mergers, lawsuits, liability or anything else, a business lawyer can suggest you about business laws and proceedings. Even in individual matters, hiring a legal advisor is the best decision one can take. This ensures an easy access to all legal provisions. Be it insurance claims, tax issues, family disputes or any other concern, proper legal advice at the right time can resolve problems at an early stage, before they turn into bigger problems.

For individuals and businesses, it is advisable to seek the help of a good legal advisor, who has the expertise and acumen of dealing with court proceedings in a specific area and can offer customised and best suited legal help as per the client’s needs. One can avail the best legal consultancy services by engaging a law firm.

Author:

Jeff Bill has more than decade experience in handling legal matter for individual and business in Canada. The author has written various popular articles on Immigration solution, criminal defense as well as spouse sponsorship in Canada.

Finding a Toronto Immigration Lawyer To Gain Citizenship As a Skilled Worker

Canada draws many different people from all over the world to visit it for the scenic views and abundant opportunities. Many people find themselves visiting Canada for the purpose of employment and then become settled and very happy with their surroundings and do not want to leave. For these people the prospect of returning to the country they are from is a daunting prospect and one they would rather not want to live out. These people are in a great place to apply for Canadian citizenship and should consult a Toronto immigration lawyer. Other factors that will impact your ability to apply for Canadian citizenship include your ability to fluently speak English and/or French. If you speak broken English or French it does not mean that it will be impossible for you receive citizenship however; it may be slightly more difficult. You should never evaluate your own situation. Retaining one of the many qualified Toronto immigration lawyers is the best way to gauge the likelihood of achieving citizenship. If you are a skilled worker and are a vital component of your employer’s business as well as financially stable you stand a great chance to achieve Canadian citizenship. The Federal Skilled Worker Application Package can be found and printed out online and may be submitted by you although; you would be better off consulting a Toronto immigration lawyer prior to filing it. The most minute mistake or wrong wording on an immigration application could cause it to be denied. In all legal matters it is vital to have the necessary knowledge to utilize all of your rights in a way that will increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome. If you happen to make a mistake on your application it could take months to correct it and by that time you may be forced out of the country. The fees associated with filing for Canadian citizenship can be substantial, consult one of many qualified Toronto immigration lawyers in order to minimize costs as much as possible. Being in good standing with your employer and other members of your community will greatly aid your application for Canadian citizenship. Be sure to have them all write recommendation letters for you so that you will stand a greater chance of achieving citizenship. Remember that every situation is different and only your attorney can accurately appraise your situation and inform you of the options you have.

About the Author Working with one of the many qualified Toronto Criminal Lawyers helps to ensure an equal field between the crown and the defendant. In many cases, the lawyer chosen serves as the only individual within the Canadian Justice System that stands on the same side as the defendant. It is the responsibility of a Toronto Criminal Lawyer to maintain an unbiased opinion of their client and act solely on their behalf.