[2][3] Evatt felt that the reserve powers could be codified and still serve their intended function in a responsible government system,[3] as they do in Ireland, Japan, and Sweden.
In legal terminology, a competence vested in 'the King' thus very often means the government, as opposed to formal laws which require a (sometimes qualified) parliamentary majority.
Campbell initially refused to redistribute ministerial portfolios on the sole advice of the premier, who lacked the confidence of his cabinet.
[7] King George VI in 1947 issued Letters Patent permitting the governor general "to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us [the monarch] in respect of Canada.
Clark had advised Guichon to dissolve the legislature as, in her view, the appointment of a Speaker would have resulted in frequent tie votes and an untenable position.
[10] Peter Hogg, a constitutional scholar, has opined that "a system of responsible government cannot work without a formal head of state who is possessed of certain reserve powers.
"[12] New Zealand's early governors, the predecessors of today's governors-general, exercised considerable power, with exclusive authority over some matters such as foreign and Māori affairs.
They also had a real choice in selecting premiers – parliaments of the period being composed of independent members who formed loose and shifting factions – and were not always obliged to act on the advice of their ministers.
[13] Sir Kenneth Keith describes the use of these powers as based on the principle that "The Queen reigns, but the government rules, so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives".
Finally, it may happen if a Prime Minister is maneuvered out of their position by their own party, retires or resigns for personal reasons, or dies in office.
Many constitutional commentators believe that the governor-general (or the sovereign) no longer has the power to refuse royal assent to any bill properly passed by the House of Representatives – former law professor and Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Professor Matthew Palmer argue any refusal of royal assent would lead to a constitutional crisis.
[16] Others, such as Professor Philip Joseph, believe the Governor-General does retain the power to refuse royal assent to Bills in exceptional circumstances - such as the abolition of democracy.
On 28 June, Prime Minister Willy Telavi's government had lost a crucial by-election, which gave the Opposition a majority of one in Parliament.
[19] Prime Minister Telavi responded that, under the Constitution, he was only required to convene Parliament once a year (for a vote on the budget), and was thus under no obligation to summon it until December.
For example, in the hung parliament in 1974, the serving Prime Minister, Edward Heath, attempted to remain in power but was unable to form a working majority.
The Queen then asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of seats in the Commons but not an overall majority, to attempt to form a government.
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the elected supreme federal ruler, commonly glossed as “King”) has no reserve powers.
It is through this clause and his position as commander-in-chief of the Spanish Armed Forces that King Juan Carlos I undermined the attempted 23-F military coup in 1981.
[31] However, by constitutional convention established by Juan Carlos I, the monarch exercises prerogatives after having solicited government advice, while remaining politically non-partisan and independent.
It is incumbent upon the King: Once a General Election has been announced by the monarch, political parties nominate their candidates to stand for the presidency of the government.
According to Article 91, within fifteen days that a bill has been passed by the Cortes Generales, the monarch shall give assent and publish the new law.
[35] Much like the Emperor of Japan, the King of Sweden does not have any constitutional responsibility for the governance of the Realm, with strictly ceremonial and representative functions remaining.
[37] During the regime of the caretaker government, the President's power expanded dramatically;[37] effectively (s)he is no longer a ceremonial head of state.
Article 16 of the Constitution of France allows the President of the Republic to exercise exceptional powers in case of a national emergency.
The inspiration for this disposition in the Constitution was the institutional chaos and lack of government authority which contributed to the French debacle in the Battle of France in 1940.
Article 16 rule has only been exercised once, in 1961, during a crisis related to the Algerian War in which Charles de Gaulle needed those emergency powers to foil a military plot to take over the government.
The German constitution limits the powers available to the President to prevent a situation in which the executive could effectively rule without legislative approval, which was the case in the Weimar Republic.
Article 81 of the German constitution states the possibility that the President can by this means keep a government capable of action even in case of loss of a constructive majority in the Bundestag.
The two most politically important discretionary powers are: The first of these means that a Taoiseach who has been defeated by a vote of no-confidence cannot automatically expect to appeal to the people by calling a general election.
However, prior to their exercise, the President is bound, in most cases, to consult the Council of State, an advisory body consisting of a mixture of senior ex-officio and nominated members.