Why was the Parliamentary Act of 1911 passed?
338753
Until the early years of the 20th century, the House of Lords had the power to prevent legislation, as bills had to be passed by both Houses of Parliament.\n\nDavid Lloyd-George's so-called 'people's budget' of 1909 brought this arrangement under strain, when the House of Lords originally refused to pass it. Eventually, the budget was passed after a general election in 1910; a second election was then fought on the issue of reform of the House of Lords. The result was the Parliament Act of 1911, which removed from the House of Lords the power to veto a bill, except one to prolong the lifetime of a parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a bill by up to two years. The Act also reduced the maximum lifespan of a Parliament from seven years to its present five years.
1103397
It is an issue in the past.  It was involved in the circumstances and political climate of its day, and there does not appear to be any sabotage intended.  It simply happened, in the open, up front.  There was nothing underhanded in that it was not ratified.
72694
The Societies Registration Act was brought into law in 1860 to help fund socities who perform some sort of public good. The full text of the law is in the first source below, while some more information from the Department of Registries is in the second one.
588300
Left hs become so powerful in parliament because it is the surviving force behind the Manmohan Singhs UPA government.\n\nLeft provide an outside support to congress and its allies in Parliament.
950816
The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Parliament also includes the Sovereign and the upper house, the House of Lords; the House of Commons is the dominant branch. The House of Commons is a democratically elected body, consisting of 646 members, who are known as "Members of Parliament" or MPs. Members are elected by the first-past-the-post system of election, holding office until Parliament is dissolved (a maximum of five years). Each member is elected by, and represents, an electoral district known as a constituency. The House of Commons is the source of the vast majority of government ministers and every Prime Minister since 1902, with the very brief exception of Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1963, has been drawn from it (Home did actually rule from the House of Commons, however, taking a seat in the House shortly after being chosen as Prime Minister).\n\nThe House of Commons evolved at some point during the 14th century and has been in continuous existence since. The House of Commons (the "lower house") was once far less powerful than the House of Lords (the "upper house"), but is now by far the dominant branch of Parliament. The House of Commons' legislative powers exceed those of the House of Lords; under the Parliament Act 1911, the Lords' power to reject most bills was reduced to a mere delaying power. Moreover, the Government of the United Kingdom is answerable to the House of Commons; the Prime Minister stays in office only as long as he or she retains the support of the lower house.\n\nThe full, formal style and title of the House of Commons is The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The term "Commons" derives from the Norman French word communes, referring to the geographic and collective communities of their representatives. It is often misunderstood that "Commons" comes from the word "commoners", referring to those sitting in the House, similar to the way in which the name "House of Lords" indicates that those sitting in the "Other Place" are elevated to the Peerage. This explanation, however, is ahistorical. Both Houses, the Commons and Lords, meet in the Palace of Westminster. Both Houses have in the past met elsewhere, and retain the right to do so, provided the Mace is present.
132103
The modern parliamentary system has its roots in the Roman Republic's senate, which was essentially a ruling council made up of the elite of society. Even after the Republic became the Roman Empire, the senate still had immense influence and power. However, as time went on, the autocratic nature of later emperors eventually reduced the senate's prestige and power, and ushered in centuries of relative autocratic rule by monarchs. Under feudalism in the Middle Ages, all members of a kingdom were technically under the protection of a ruling monarch (and the Church), who gave land to nobles in exchange for support. However, nobles would occasionally challenge the ruling monarch (as would the Church). Under the customs of Feudalism, groups of nobles would meet to decide on whether they would support the monarch on important issues. These groups sometimes clashed with the autocratic nature of some monarchs. The most important clash, in the evolution of the nation state and Constitutional rule of law, came with Magna Carta of 1215—it was the first true challenge to the unrestrained powers of a king, attempting to constitutionally limit King John after he committed a series of debacles. The kingdom of England had become too big, the groups of nobles believed, for any one man as crazy as John to make decisions. The statements made by Magna Carta were a direct challenge to the Divine Right of Kings, a philosophy held by convention at the time, and led to many civil wars, perhaps the most famous of which was the English Civil War.\n\nParliaments throughout Europe systematically replaced the powers of the monarch, often holding complete financial control of the state. In many cases the monarchs finally signed over all actual power, and became ceremonial figureheads. In others, the entire monarchy fell, and were replaced by the parliaments. As time went on, most states began to give suffrage to decide the makeup of the parliament, often with two houses. One was hereditary and made up of nobles, and the other made up of elected officials, for example the House of Lords and House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Initially, the house of the elite, or upper house, held most of the power, but most parliaments now invest almost complete power in the elected or lower house. Some parliaments have abolished the upper house completely, while others have altered them to be elected as well. The parliamentary system has come full circle from its ancient beginnings.\n\nThe executive is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government, but parliamentarism has also been practised with privy councils. The prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet typically have their background in the parliament and may remain members thereof while serving in cabinet. The leader of the leading party, or group of parties, in the parliament is often appointed as the prime minister. In many countries, the cabinet, or single members thereof, can be removed by the parliament through a vote of no confidence. In addition, the executive can often dissolve the parliament and call extra-ordinary elections. Under the parliamentary system the roles of head of state and head of government are more or less separated. In most parliamentary systems, the head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, often a monarch or president, retaining duties that aren't politically divisive, such as appointments of civil service. In many parliamentary systems, the head of state may have reserve powers which are usable in a crisis. In most cases however, such powers are (either by convention or by constitutional rule) only exercised upon the advice and approval of the head of government.\n\nBecause the executive is directly related to the legislature, some argue the executive is actually more accountable than many fixed term presidential systems, as the executive, being linked to the legislative, can face an early election in the face
929043
Because it is the only slim thread that holds them some rights.\n\nIt is of course as everyone knows based on no real constitutional grounds, since it has no real relatonship to right to privacy, which is what it is based on.\n\nit was passed because of political pressure, not good legal grounds,  If actually reviewed by legal standard it would never hold up again.
495625
Because law was no longer a fiat of a heredetary monarch but by consultation of noble subjects and later  representatives of the governed in  Parliament.
164343
Edward VII reigned as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1901 until 1910.
611177
Article 1 provides for the establishment of the bicameral Congress composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The various powers of the Congress and the respective houses, together with their methods of election, are enumerated in the article. The Seventeenth Amendment, passed in 1916, instituted the direct popular election of Senators and removed the power of their election from the state legislatures as had originally been provided in Article 1.
65754
In 1893, New Zealand granted women the right to vote, becoming the first country in the world to do so.
614276
Chinese Immigration Act 1885, \nCanadian Immigration Act, 2002
419369
I know it was passed fairly recent in this country.  It was passed about five or six years ago in australia and they had some big brew ha ha over there because it was messing up the accountants or something.
381095
Constitutionally, the Queen is an essential part of the legislative process of her Realms. The Queen-in-Parliament (the Queen, acting with the advice and consent of Parliament), in each country, is an integral part of Parliament, along with the upper and lower houses. In all of her realms outside of the United Kingdom, her participation is limited to the appointment of representatives within the realm in question, usually a Governor-General, who exercise executive power in a fashion closely resembling her own exercise of power within the United Kingdom.\n\nIn practice, much of the Queen's role in the legislative process is ceremonial, as her reserve powers are rarely exercised. For example, the Queen may legally grant or withhold Royal Assent to Bills, but no monarch has refused his or her assent to a Bill since 1708. In realms outside of the United Kingdom the Queen will only grant assent to a bill when personally present within the realm, otherwise delegating the power to her designated representative in the realm. The Queen, or her Governors-General in the realms outside the United Kingdom, also gives a speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament, outlining the government's legislative agenda for the year, but the speech is written by government ministers and reflects the view of the elected government.\n\nThe Queen also has a functional role in executive government. In the United Kingdom, she chooses her prime minister in accordance with constitutional requirements. In her realms outside the United Kingdom, this power is exercised by her representatives. In reality no actual choice is required as the issue of whom to ask to form a government is clear from who controls the House of Commons, except in exceptional circumstances. She also decides the basis on which a person is asked to form a government. That is, whether a government should be formed capable of surviving in the House of Commons — the standard requirement — or capable of commanding majority support in the House of Commons — i.e., a requirement to form a coalition if no one party has a majority. This requirement was last set in 1940, when King George VI asked Winston Churchill to form a government capable of commanding a majority in parliament. This necessitated a coalition. The requirement is normally only made in emergencies or in wartime, and happened only three times in the 20th century: with Andrew Bonar Law and David Lloyd George in 1916 (Bonar Law declined and recommended King George V ask Lloyd George to form a government) and Churchill in 1940. To date Elizabeth has never set it. All her prime ministers have had to meet the lower requirement of simply surviving in the House of Commons. The Queen also appoints ministers of the United Kingdom and all government is carried out legally in her name.\n\nTheoretically she stills holds a large proportion of power in international affairs. The Queen, as Head of State, has the power to declare war and make peace, to recognise foreign states, to conclude treaties and to take over or give up territory on behalf of the United Kingdom. In her other realms she leaves the exercise of these powers to her representatives, who likewise exercise it at the behest of elected governments.\n\nUK Orders-in-Council are issued only when approved by her at Privy Council meetings, Canadian Orders issued only when approved by her Governor General-in-council. She has access to all government minutes and documentation from all her Realms, and has a weekly meeting with the British Prime Minister when the British parliament is in session. In the UK she also signs executive orders, financial and treasury papers, with her signature required on all major financial transactions of state (countersigned by the relevant minister). The role of Commander-in-Chief is held in each realm either by the Queen or by her Governor-General as her representative.\n\nOn three occasions during her reign the Queen has had to deal with cons
335156
The Wagner Act, or the The National Labor Relations Act as it is sometimes referred to as, was a law passed in 1935 in favor of labor unions and workers.  The main thing that it did was it created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which had the power to give elections to workers, asking if they would like to be represented by a union.  The NLRB also would investigate to see if any unfair labor practice charges were occurring.  The Actu also allowed workers to organize labor unions, collective bargain, and to take action such as striking legally.  Although it may sound like a huge advance for all workers, it was very exclusive.  The Wagner Act does not include farmers, supervisors, domestic employees, individual contractors, and family or friends of the employer.  The act did not apply to any workers already covered by the Railway Labor Act of 1926 either.....hoped this helped.
485003
Laws from where? The US Congress, your state Congress? Britain? Australia? There are lots of places that pass lots of laws. We need more information.
963954
Predudice carred over from history when homosexuality was a criminal offence.\nWrite to your MP - or send a petition