下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- The value orientation of the house of lords，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了贵族院的价值定位。贵族院又称上议院，是英国议会的重要组成部分之一。作为重要的国家机构，其曾经在议会与英王的权力斗争过程中扮演过关键性的领导角色，并曾在相当漫长的一段时间内集立法、司法、行政等重要的国家权力于一身。现代的英国宪法体系下，贵族院的作用被精确地定位为对平民院的补充而非破坏，它是修正的和慎思的议院，不得挑战平民院的突出地位，它并不是平民院的简单重复者和对手。
The bourgeois revolution took place in England during the reign of Stuart. After the "glorious revolution" in 1688, the elected common people's court became the core institution of British politics. Since then, the power of the king of England was gradually weakened and became a "virtual monarch". And the power of the house of lords began to gradually transfer to the civilian court. The parliament act of 1832 removed the power of the house of lords to nominate members of the house of Commons. The parliament act of 1911 further stipulated that all financial bills passed by the house of Commons could be sent to the king of England for approval and publication even if they could not be passed by the house of lords. The house of lords could veto non-fiscal bills only twice, and the 1949 act of parliament shortened the period to one year. At this point, the financial and legislative and other major state affairs of power to the full civilian court. In respect of judicial power, The Scotland in 1689, The Scottish The Claim of Right to establish The appellate jurisdiction of civil cases, Scottish parliament in 1707, according to The act of united England and Scotland, The Scottish parliament and The power into lords of appeal case jurisdiction, from then on, emblazoned with The Supreme Court to enable The system has been in use today. In the 1870s, the British government tried several times to abolish the jurisdiction of the house of lords and set up a court of final appeal, but failed. By 1876, the jurisdiction of appeal law officially confirmed the jurisdiction of the house of lords.
Since 2003, the Blair government has been considering a series of reforms to the house of lords, including the 2005 constitutional reform act. On June 12, 2003, Blair announced that Lord ChancellorIrvine would retire and that Lord Falconer would serve as chancellor for a transitional period.
On October 1st, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was formally established, which abolished the judicial function of the house of lords for several centuries. At the same time, the hereditary aristocracy, as one of the traditional members of the court, was also removed from all seats in the court.
The above historical changes outline the development trajectory of the house of lords and the parliamentary politics it represents. Parliamentary politics from beginning until the end of the "glorious revolution" during this period, if the idea can be called the first house and the house of Commons is called the second chamber, then start from the middle of the nineteenth century, great changes have taken place in the relationship between the two, the former by the first house fell for the second chamber, the latter the contrary; The parliament act of 1911 fixed the changed power relationship between the two houses in a statutory form. Although the ACTS of parliament of 1832, 1911 and 1949 gradually weakened the power of the house of lords, they changed only the exercise of legislative power, and the judicial power that had lasted for centuries was not abolished.
Britain does not have a written constitutional code. The British constitution can be considered "unwritten constitution". Bagehot described the British constitution in his famous book the British constitution as follows: "the constitution of the United States was written by a conference; The British constitution has been built up over centuries. And the history of the house of lords is a reflection of that description. Through the observation of the early English legal history, it can be found that the nobles played a very important role in that period, which can be summarized as the following aspects: they were often the authors of many key and important legal documents, such as the famous magna carta and the petition of rights; They are often the advocates of major political and legal movements, which is closely related to this point. Since the magna carta, the practice of the exercise of judicial power by nobles has been preserved and developed in the course of centuries.
The aristocracy is a symbol of status and status. In terms of the traditional distinction of social status, they are above the common people and below the king. Since Britain does not have the concept of nation in the modern sense in law, only the king is the symbol of national power. Therefore, in a country with great respect for tradition, the king can arouse people's great reverence. An important function of the aristocracy, traditionally an important political institution in England, is that its very existence "calls to mind a subservient consciousness of the soul of the vulgar, the frivolous, and the petty majority, who neither appreciate nor are aware of anything else." It also prevents a kind of "pure" money domination. The important factor that makes the aristocracy produce the above functions can be summarized as a common human nature, which is the envy of wealth. Everything in terms of money - "a simple love of the gold itself" - is the standard of daily life for many ordinary people. But aristocracy, to a large extent, formed a "sense of admiration for money" to ease and even resist. In British society, because of the establishment of the aristocracy, "pure and simple" money is by no means a symbol of nobility. Money is overwhelmed by the overwhelming authority of a different spiritual force. In this case, the society has two kinds of idol worship, the first is the worship of pure money, and the other is from the noble worship spirit of the aristocratic system of worship. And once the two exist at the same time, it will certainly make people choose between them, or the competition between the two kinds of worship.
Generally speaking, the name of aristocracy almost means something hereditary, a kind of identity and a symbol of noble spirit, and it has formed a certain social style over time. The wealth of money is merely an adjunct to a man, not to the man himself, so that if people worship only the wealth of money itself, then they worship only the adjunct to the man, but if they worship nobility, then they worship the extraordinary virtue of the man.
The house of lords is a collection of elite members of society that makes it another institution of state besides the king of England that inspires a sense of reverence. At the same time, the efficiency of the house of lords is quite high compared with that of the house of Commons. Some people even claim that the house of lords only needs one night to complete the work that the house of lords takes a week to complete. Although through the long history of the wash and make today's house of lords compared to the history of the "faded" many, but it still plays an important role in the British constitution in the "honor" part. With the development of parliamentary politics, the spirit of "honor" is integrated into the blood of the British constitution and becomes an important spirit in the British constitution.
Before the "glorious revolution", the role of the civilian court was not taken seriously. With the modernization of society, the role of the civilian court was gradually taken seriously. The house of lords, on the other hand, was full of honor and power before the fall of the aristocracy. After the decline of the aristocracy, most of the functions of effectiveness were transferred to the plebeian court, while the noble house maintained its functions of honor. As an important political institution, it was always respected by the British people.
If, in the middle ages and before, there was a conflict of power between the house of lords, the house of Commons, and the king of England, the conflict was more likely to exist between the house of lords and the house of lords. Since the glorious revolution, power conflicts tend to exist between the former two. In the first period, the power of the royal family was gradually weakened in the struggle, and then transferred to itself. In the later period, the active party of this power transfer was replaced by the commoner's court, while the passive party was the noble court. That is to say, the changing history of the constitutional power of the aristocracy is not in accordance with the veneration it has received, which has become a contradiction in the spirit of the British constitution. The British have been trying to solve this contradiction with a constitutional attitude: trying to find the method they need to solve this contradiction from the function of political institutions and the history of political thoughts, instead of resorting to pure legal theories.
In any case, the crucial question at the heart of the reform is how to define the role of the house of lords in modern British politics. Take an examination of the history of many classics of law, it is not difficult to find that all the time since there is such a theory -- it thought, idea ought to be, and in fact is also a and the house of Commons in parliament coordination institution, a Commons equal institutions, and the house of Commons on behalf of the king of domestic branch the general populace role, noble lords also represents the kingdom branch; According to the conventions and principles of the British constitution, the two branches should have the same authority and power. The above theory can be understood as a "balanced" bicameral constitutional theory, that is, both houses of parliament should be "equal". To what extent is this theory feasible? I have this objection, that the house of lords and the house of Commons are of entirely different natures, and that, if given equal powers, either of them, under normal political circumstances, can prevent any legislation which it itself does not think fit. If so, much of the legislature, which is necessary for many countries, will fail because of a row between the two Chambers. Historically, with the "glorious revolution" as the boundary line, in the period before this, the house of lords was over the civilian court, and even guided the civilian court to a large extent. After that, the relationship between the two houses shifted -- the Commons was superior to the house of lords. Therefore, compared with the bicameral parliamentary political system in feudal times, what was established after the "glorious revolution" was a new type of bicameral political system. Facing this change, the specific positioning of the two houses must be re-examined. It should be said that the change of the old and new bicameral politics could be attributed to the change of the power balance between different social classes in Britain at that time. The process of modernization actually led to the change of power between the masses and the aristocracy. The former gradually mastered the dominant power of the state, while the latter gradually declined. Such a contrast is reflected in the national political system is an important carrier of the two forces - the house of lords and the house of Commons to re-examine the positioning. If the will of the people is to be maximized rather than to be followed by the aristocracy, the balance of power will inevitably swing in the direction of the Commons. However, the house of lords and the aristocracy are important symbols of the whole British culture, and completely negating their functions runs counter to the spirit of the whole constitutional convention. How to solve this paradox in reality? The parliamentary laws of 1911 and 1949 provided a way to position the house of lords as a revisionist and advisory house in the context of the dominance of the Commons. The important consideration and unique function of this position is that the house of lords, as the amendment court of the people's court, can bring less partisan opinions to the legislative process compared with the excessive party disputes involved in the proceedings of the people's court, and can have sufficient time to conduct a long investigation of the government work. In terms of the current personnel composition of the house of lords, it has a lot of professional knowledge, but these are advantages that the house of lords does not have. The house of lords can use this advantage to put forward its own unique perspective on the government work, instead of simply repeating the legislative work of the house of lords. In addition, compared with the civilian court, the court is in a relatively detached position and will not be disturbed by too many unnecessary party factors. At the same time, it does not have the problem of bearing responsibilities to the constituency, so it is extremely important to maintain the stability of the government.
In addition to legislation and the day-to-day work of government, the highest judicial power of the house of lords, which has lasted for centuries, is also an important factor in the above contradiction. Until 2005 there were two supreme courts in Britain, and although the professional and personal conduct of British judges has long been praised, the flaws of such a system are obvious. First, there are serious problems with the existence of the two supreme courts: "one committee can decide that a person has no problem with money, and the other committee can decide that he has a problem with land." Of course, the two judicial organs will not try the same case, because their respective jurisdiction is not the same, but the judicial opinions caused by legal issues of the same nature involved in the trial process may produce substantive conflicts, which is not necessarily a more beneficial approach for the unification of the judiciary of a country. Second, the judiciary committee of the house of lords is not an independent judiciary in the true sense of the word -- it is itself a constituent part of parliament, a court "hidden under the gun of parliament" in bagehot's words; Although the noble qualities of British judges are commended, the defects of this structure are still in conflict with the modern constitutional concept of judicial independence.
To sum up the above discussion, the author believes that under the modern British constitutional system, the role of the house of lords is precisely positioned as a supplement to, rather than a disruption to, the house of Commons. It is a revised and deliberative house, and must not challenge the prominent position of the house of Commons. Even the "second court" has its unique status and function. It may be a less prominent institution, but it is an institution for people to look up to, a manifestation of the spirit of reverence.
想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
The bourgeois revolution took place in England during the reign of Stuart. After the "glorious revolution" in 1688, the elected common people's court became the core institution of British politics. Since then, the power of the king of England was gradually weakened and became a "virtual monarch". And the power of the house of lords began to gradually transfer to the civilian court. The parliament act of 1832 removed the power of the house of lords to nominate members of the house of Commons. The parliament act of 1911 further stipulated that all financial bills passed by the house of Commons could be sent to the king of England for approval and publication even if they could not be passed by the house of lords. The house of lords could veto non-fiscal bills only twice, and the 1949 act of parliament shortened the period to one year. At this point, the financial and legislative and other major state affairs of power to the full civilian court. In respect of judicial power, The Scotland in 1689, The Scottish The Claim of Right to establish The appellate jurisdiction of civil cases, Scottish parliament in 1707, according to The act of united England and Scotland, The Scottish parliament and The power into lords of appeal case jurisdiction, from then on, emblazoned with The Supreme Court to enable The system has been in use today. In the 1870s, the British government tried several times to abolish the jurisdiction of the house of lords and set up a court of final appeal, but failed. By 1876, the jurisdiction of appeal law officially confirmed the jurisdiction of the house of lords.
Since 2003, the Blair government has been considering a series of reforms to the house of lords, including the 2005 constitutional reform act. On June 12, 2003, Blair announced that Lord ChancellorIrvine would retire and that Lord Falconer would serve as chancellor for a transitional period.
On October 1st, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was formally established, which abolished the judicial function of the house of lords for several centuries. At the same time, the hereditary aristocracy, as one of the traditional members of the court, was also removed from all seats in the court.
The above historical changes outline the development trajectory of the house of lords and the parliamentary politics it represents. Parliamentary politics from beginning until the end of the "glorious revolution" during this period, if the idea can be called the first house and the house of Commons is called the second chamber, then start from the middle of the nineteenth century, great changes have taken place in the relationship between the two, the former by the first house fell for the second chamber, the latter the contrary; The parliament act of 1911 fixed the changed power relationship between the two houses in a statutory form. Although the ACTS of parliament of 1832, 1911 and 1949 gradually weakened the power of the house of lords, they changed only the exercise of legislative power, and the judicial power that had lasted for centuries was not abolished.
Britain does not have a written constitutional code. The British constitution can be considered "unwritten constitution". Bagehot described the British constitution in his famous book the British constitution as follows: "the constitution of the United States was written by a conference; The British constitution has been built up over centuries. And the history of the house of lords is a reflection of that description. Through the observation of the early English legal history, it can be found that the nobles played a very important role in that period, which can be summarized as the following aspects: they were often the authors of many key and important legal documents, such as the famous magna carta and the petition of rights; They are often the advocates of major political and legal movements, which is closely related to this point. Since the magna carta, the practice of the exercise of judicial power by nobles has been preserved and developed in the course of centuries.
The aristocracy is a symbol of status and status. In terms of the traditional distinction of social status, they are above the common people and below the king. Since Britain does not have the concept of nation in the modern sense in law, only the king is the symbol of national power. Therefore, in a country with great respect for tradition, the king can arouse people's great reverence. An important function of the aristocracy, traditionally an important political institution in England, is that its very existence "calls to mind a subservient consciousness of the soul of the vulgar, the frivolous, and the petty majority, who neither appreciate nor are aware of anything else." It also prevents a kind of "pure" money domination. The important factor that makes the aristocracy produce the above functions can be summarized as a common human nature, which is the envy of wealth. Everything in terms of money - "a simple love of the gold itself" - is the standard of daily life for many ordinary people. But aristocracy, to a large extent, formed a "sense of admiration for money" to ease and even resist. In British society, because of the establishment of the aristocracy, "pure and simple" money is by no means a symbol of nobility. Money is overwhelmed by the overwhelming authority of a different spiritual force. In this case, the society has two kinds of idol worship, the first is the worship of pure money, and the other is from the noble worship spirit of the aristocratic system of worship. And once the two exist at the same time, it will certainly make people choose between them, or the competition between the two kinds of worship.
Generally speaking, the name of aristocracy almost means something hereditary, a kind of identity and a symbol of noble spirit, and it has formed a certain social style over time. The wealth of money is merely an adjunct to a man, not to the man himself, so that if people worship only the wealth of money itself, then they worship only the adjunct to the man, but if they worship nobility, then they worship the extraordinary virtue of the man.
The house of lords is a collection of elite members of society that makes it another institution of state besides the king of England that inspires a sense of reverence. At the same time, the efficiency of the house of lords is quite high compared with that of the house of Commons. Some people even claim that the house of lords only needs one night to complete the work that the house of lords takes a week to complete. Although through the long history of the wash and make today's house of lords compared to the history of the "faded" many, but it still plays an important role in the British constitution in the "honor" part. With the development of parliamentary politics, the spirit of "honor" is integrated into the blood of the British constitution and becomes an important spirit in the British constitution.
Before the "glorious revolution", the role of the civilian court was not taken seriously. With the modernization of society, the role of the civilian court was gradually taken seriously. The house of lords, on the other hand, was full of honor and power before the fall of the aristocracy. After the decline of the aristocracy, most of the functions of effectiveness were transferred to the plebeian court, while the noble house maintained its functions of honor. As an important political institution, it was always respected by the British people.
If, in the middle ages and before, there was a conflict of power between the house of lords, the house of Commons, and the king of England, the conflict was more likely to exist between the house of lords and the house of lords. Since the glorious revolution, power conflicts tend to exist between the former two. In the first period, the power of the royal family was gradually weakened in the struggle, and then transferred to itself. In the later period, the active party of this power transfer was replaced by the commoner's court, while the passive party was the noble court. That is to say, the changing history of the constitutional power of the aristocracy is not in accordance with the veneration it has received, which has become a contradiction in the spirit of the British constitution. The British have been trying to solve this contradiction with a constitutional attitude: trying to find the method they need to solve this contradiction from the function of political institutions and the history of political thoughts, instead of resorting to pure legal theories.
In any case, the crucial question at the heart of the reform is how to define the role of the house of lords in modern British politics. Take an examination of the history of many classics of law, it is not difficult to find that all the time since there is such a theory -- it thought, idea ought to be, and in fact is also a and the house of Commons in parliament coordination institution, a Commons equal institutions, and the house of Commons on behalf of the king of domestic branch the general populace role, noble lords also represents the kingdom branch; According to the conventions and principles of the British constitution, the two branches should have the same authority and power. The above theory can be understood as a "balanced" bicameral constitutional theory, that is, both houses of parliament should be "equal". To what extent is this theory feasible? I have this objection, that the house of lords and the house of Commons are of entirely different natures, and that, if given equal powers, either of them, under normal political circumstances, can prevent any legislation which it itself does not think fit. If so, much of the legislature, which is necessary for many countries, will fail because of a row between the two Chambers. Historically, with the "glorious revolution" as the boundary line, in the period before this, the house of lords was over the civilian court, and even guided the civilian court to a large extent. After that, the relationship between the two houses shifted -- the Commons was superior to the house of lords. Therefore, compared with the bicameral parliamentary political system in feudal times, what was established after the "glorious revolution" was a new type of bicameral political system. Facing this change, the specific positioning of the two houses must be re-examined. It should be said that the change of the old and new bicameral politics could be attributed to the change of the power balance between different social classes in Britain at that time. The process of modernization actually led to the change of power between the masses and the aristocracy. The former gradually mastered the dominant power of the state, while the latter gradually declined. Such a contrast is reflected in the national political system is an important carrier of the two forces - the house of lords and the house of Commons to re-examine the positioning. If the will of the people is to be maximized rather than to be followed by the aristocracy, the balance of power will inevitably swing in the direction of the Commons. However, the house of lords and the aristocracy are important symbols of the whole British culture, and completely negating their functions runs counter to the spirit of the whole constitutional convention. How to solve this paradox in reality? The parliamentary laws of 1911 and 1949 provided a way to position the house of lords as a revisionist and advisory house in the context of the dominance of the Commons. The important consideration and unique function of this position is that the house of lords, as the amendment court of the people's court, can bring less partisan opinions to the legislative process compared with the excessive party disputes involved in the proceedings of the people's court, and can have sufficient time to conduct a long investigation of the government work. In terms of the current personnel composition of the house of lords, it has a lot of professional knowledge, but these are advantages that the house of lords does not have. The house of lords can use this advantage to put forward its own unique perspective on the government work, instead of simply repeating the legislative work of the house of lords. In addition, compared with the civilian court, the court is in a relatively detached position and will not be disturbed by too many unnecessary party factors. At the same time, it does not have the problem of bearing responsibilities to the constituency, so it is extremely important to maintain the stability of the government.
In addition to legislation and the day-to-day work of government, the highest judicial power of the house of lords, which has lasted for centuries, is also an important factor in the above contradiction. Until 2005 there were two supreme courts in Britain, and although the professional and personal conduct of British judges has long been praised, the flaws of such a system are obvious. First, there are serious problems with the existence of the two supreme courts: "one committee can decide that a person has no problem with money, and the other committee can decide that he has a problem with land." Of course, the two judicial organs will not try the same case, because their respective jurisdiction is not the same, but the judicial opinions caused by legal issues of the same nature involved in the trial process may produce substantive conflicts, which is not necessarily a more beneficial approach for the unification of the judiciary of a country. Second, the judiciary committee of the house of lords is not an independent judiciary in the true sense of the word -- it is itself a constituent part of parliament, a court "hidden under the gun of parliament" in bagehot's words; Although the noble qualities of British judges are commended, the defects of this structure are still in conflict with the modern constitutional concept of judicial independence.
To sum up the above discussion, the author believes that under the modern British constitutional system, the role of the house of lords is precisely positioned as a supplement to, rather than a disruption to, the house of Commons. It is a revised and deliberative house, and must not challenge the prominent position of the house of Commons. Even the "second court" has its unique status and function. It may be a less prominent institution, but it is an institution for people to look up to, a manifestation of the spirit of reverence.
想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます