Law Maker
All subjects

Comparative Public Law MCQs and mock tests

60 distinct Comparative Public Law questions are in live Law Maker papers, used across 1 exam. Each was checked against the official text and comes with the answer and an explanation once you submit.

Build a Comparative Public Law test10 to 100 questions, your timer and marking, new questions first. Free account needed.

Comparative Public Law practice sets

2 sets, 1 free.

Exams with Comparative Public Law questions

Sample Comparative Public Law questions

From free papers. Try each one before you open the answer.

  1. Question 1 · Comparative Public Law Practice Set 1

    A Public Bill (not a Money Bill) receives its second reading in the House of Commons on 10 March in Session 1, passes the Commons, is sent to the Lords more than a month before the end of that session and is rejected. In Session 2 the identical Bill passes the Commons on 1 February of the next year, reaches the Lords in time and is again rejected. Under the Parliament Acts, 1911 and 1949, the Bill:

    1. A. can go for Royal Assent at once, because the Commons has passed it in two sessions
    2. B. cannot go for Royal Assent under section 2, as one year did not elapse after that reading
    3. C. can go for Royal Assent only if the Lords rejected it within one month in Session 2
    4. D. must first be passed by the Commons once more in a third successive session of Parliament
    Show the answer

    B. cannot go for Royal Assent under section 2, as one year did not elapse after that reading

    The proviso to section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, requires one year to elapse between the second reading in the Commons in the first session and the date the Bill passes the Commons in the second session. From 10 March to 1 February is less than a year, so the section does not yet take effect; the 1949 Act reduced the requirement from three sessions to two.

  2. Question 2 · Comparative Public Law Practice Set 1

    In State X, every law, including the law on succession to the head of State and the law on the composition of the legislature, can legally be changed by the ordinary legislature with the same ease and in the same manner as a law permitting a company to build a railway. In Dicey's classification, the constitution of State X is:

    1. A. rigid, because only the legislature and no other body has the power to change it
    2. B. semi-rigid, because its constitutional laws are mixed with ordinary statute law
    3. C. rigid, because some of its laws deal with the fundamental institutions of the State
    4. D. flexible, because every law can be changed by the same body in the same manner
    Show the answer

    D. flexible, because every law can be changed by the same body in the same manner

    Dicey defines a flexible constitution as one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body. Laws are called constitutional because of their subject, not because they are harder to change; a rigid constitution needs some extraordinary method of legislation.

  3. Question 3 · Comparative Public Law Practice Set 1

    Match List I (legislative chamber) with List II (term or duration as fixed by its constitutional text): List I A. House of the People (India) B. House of Representatives (Australia) C. UK Parliament (Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act, 2022) D. House of Representatives (United States) List II 1. Members chosen every second year 2. Three years from the first meeting of the House, unless sooner dissolved 3. Five years from the date appointed for its first meeting, unless sooner dissolved 4. Dissolves at the beginning of the fifth anniversary of the day it first met, if not dissolved earlier

    1. A. A-3, B-1, C-4, D-2
    2. B. A-4, B-2, C-3, D-1
    3. C. A-3, B-2, C-4, D-1
    4. D. A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1
    Show the answer

    C. A-3, B-2, C-4, D-1

    Article 83(2) fixes five years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the House of the People; section 28 of the Australian Constitution fixes three years from the first meeting; section 4 of the UK Act of 2022 provides for automatic dissolution on the fifth anniversary of the first meeting; Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides for members chosen every second year.

  4. Question 4 · Comparative Public Law Practice Set 1

    In R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held, by a majority of 8 to 3, that:

    1. A. notice of withdrawal could lawfully be given only after every devolved legislature had consented to it
    2. B. an Act of Parliament was required to authorise ministers to give notice of withdrawal from the European Union
    3. C. the 2016 referendum result by itself conferred legal authority on ministers to give the notice of withdrawal
    4. D. ministers could give notice of withdrawal under the prerogative, as treaty-making lies outside judicial review
    Show the answer

    B. an Act of Parliament was required to authorise ministers to give notice of withdrawal from the European Union

    The majority held that withdrawal would change domestic law and remove rights, so the prerogative could not be used and prior authorisation by an Act of Parliament was required. On the devolution issues the Court held that the consent of the devolved legislatures was not a legal requirement.

  5. Question 5 · Comparative Public Law Practice Set 1

    In R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister; Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, concerning the prorogation of Parliament in September 2019, the Supreme Court held that:

    1. A. the prorogation was valid, since Article 9 of the Bill of Rights barred any inquiry
    2. B. the advice to prorogue was unlawful, so the prorogation was null and of no effect
    3. C. the advice to prorogue was not justiciable, being a matter of high policy alone
    4. D. the prorogation was lawful but Parliament could be recalled under the 1797 Act
    Show the answer

    B. the advice to prorogue was unlawful, so the prorogation was null and of no effect

    The Court held that a prorogation is unlawful if it frustrates or prevents, without reasonable justification, Parliament's ability to carry out its constitutional functions. The advice was unlawful, the Order in Council and the prorogation were null and of no effect, and Parliament had not been prorogued; Article 9 did not bar the inquiry.