Why did John Austin’s theory of parliamentary sovereignty fit 19th-century Britain better than the United States?

John Austin’s theory of parliamentary sovereignty, which posits that a supreme legislative body holds absolute authority to enact or change laws without being bound by them, aligned with 19th-century Britain because the British system lacked a rigid, written constitution and did not subject acts of Parliament to judicial review. In this context, Parliament functioned as the ultimate, unconstrained authority to which the political community rendered habitual obedience.1234

Conversely, this theory did not fit the United States because the American system is defined by a fundamental, written Constitution that imposes explicit restrictions on the national legislature. Furthermore, the U.S. judiciary established the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803), allowing courts to invalidate legislation that conflicts with constitutional norms. Additionally, the U.S. federal system divides power between the national government and the states, making it impossible to identify a single, absolute sovereign in the way Austin described for the British Parliament.1356