The UK Supreme court case that's going to cover both the lawsuit in England and this one in Scotland on the 17th will be extremely interesting. I think it's ridiculous that Johnson's prorogued...
The UK Supreme court case that's going to cover both the lawsuit in England and this one in Scotland on the 17th will be extremely interesting.
I think it's ridiculous that Johnson's prorogued Parliament for weeks with the official reason given is for preparing the Queen's Speech on October 14th.
If the courts don't strike that down, they seem to essentially be giving the executive branch the authority to do whatever they want, and that the (unwritten) constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on: it can simply be ignored.
We'll see what happens. What a shambles in any case.
Yeah, I wasn't convinced by the High Court's ruling that they can't interfere because it's political. It's very much the job of the judiciary to interfere if and when a politician goes beyond the...
If the courts don't strike that down, they seem to essentially be giving the executive branch the authority to do whatever they want, and that the (unwritten) constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on: it can simply be ignored.
Yeah, I wasn't convinced by the High Court's ruling that they can't interfere because it's political. It's very much the job of the judiciary to interfere if and when a politician goes beyond the defined limits of their power.
As you say, it would be fairly difficult to find a reasonable person who'd believe the length and timing of the prorogation were entirely neutral and not calculated to impede Parliament.
I will say that I'm unexpectedly pleased by the speed and ferocity of the backlash (public, press, and MPs) when Johnson started to seriously step on the rule of law. Maybe my bar has been drastically lowered by the last few years, but I was extremely despondent about it and expected it to pass quietly in the same way that the illegal campaign spending and billion pound DUP deal did.
The questions the article raises about the role of monarchy are also very apt:
How well was the Queen advised? Should the Palace have pushed Downing Street harder as to the reasons for the prorogation? The Queen has been drawn into the Brexit mire, and the questions now go to the heart of her constitutional role.
If she has no discretion at all over prorogation, what is her constitutional purpose? If she has discretion, when would she use it? Traditionally politicians step very carefully around these issues so as not embarrass the Queen and upset the constitutional order. But these are far from traditional times.
The article as a whole is one of the best I've seen from the BBC recently, in fact.
Would the court be giving the executive that authority, or just confirming they already have it? I am genuinely asking, as the idea of an unwritten constitution is very strange to me as an...
If the courts don't strike that down, they seem to essentially be giving the executive branch the authority to do whatever they want, and that the (unwritten) constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on: it can simply be ignored.
Would the court be giving the executive that authority, or just confirming they already have it? I am genuinely asking, as the idea of an unwritten constitution is very strange to me as an American. What legal protections exist that limit the PM's ability to advise the queen to prorogue? Or has it just been convention that it is not suspended in times of intense and important disagreement such as now? If the latter, in my opinion (again, as a foreigner) the court isn't really granting anything new - they would simply be reaffirming that yes, the PM has always had this power.
As constraining as they can be (and at times ineffectual, see our current executive), I can't help but feel an explicit written constitution is an important document for any republic.
I think most of us do. Yet the British politicians seem to be largely proud of having the "oldest" constitution although it isn't written down. It's rule by precedent and all the laws placed on...
As constraining as they can be (and at times ineffectual, see our current executive), I can't help but feel an explicit written constitution is an important document for any republic.
I think most of us do. Yet the British politicians seem to be largely proud of having the "oldest" constitution although it isn't written down. It's rule by precedent and all the laws placed on the books and repealed over hundreds of years.
It works like a sort of gentleman's agreement to act in good faith and with integrity. When people suddenly stop doing that then any democracy with an old constitution is going to face issues. Like the US has been for the last couple of decades. That time has shown that the oldest written constitution is simply too hard to change and can be dismantled piece by piece if you stop following precedent in congressional procedure.
Even if we just move a generation from the late 18th century constitution the US has, to the second oldest constitution in the world, the Norwegian one (1814) a lot of those issues have been avoided because amending the constitution is a regular process that happens every couple of years. You aren't left with an outdated mess because it's too hard to change.
Although the UK and US have different issues with their constitutions, the main problem is that it's hard to know what those constitutions actually say. They're so vague and up to interpretation. Legislators aren't writing laws, so that power is delegated to the courts to interpret the few things that are actually on the books. It becomes representative democracy by judge/procedural rules-picking. And that makes it hard for the electorate to hold their representatives to account.
In both cases, whether the constitution is written, or written vaguely.
I'm not particularly well versed in UK Constitutional law, but what is the status of the Scottish highest civil court against the PM's Executive powers?
I'm not particularly well versed in UK Constitutional law, but what is the status of the Scottish highest civil court against the PM's Executive powers?
The UK Supreme court case that's going to cover both the lawsuit in England and this one in Scotland on the 17th will be extremely interesting.
I think it's ridiculous that Johnson's prorogued Parliament for weeks with the official reason given is for preparing the Queen's Speech on October 14th.
If the courts don't strike that down, they seem to essentially be giving the executive branch the authority to do whatever they want, and that the (unwritten) constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on: it can simply be ignored.
We'll see what happens. What a shambles in any case.
Yeah, I wasn't convinced by the High Court's ruling that they can't interfere because it's political. It's very much the job of the judiciary to interfere if and when a politician goes beyond the defined limits of their power.
As you say, it would be fairly difficult to find a reasonable person who'd believe the length and timing of the prorogation were entirely neutral and not calculated to impede Parliament.
I will say that I'm unexpectedly pleased by the speed and ferocity of the backlash (public, press, and MPs) when Johnson started to seriously step on the rule of law. Maybe my bar has been drastically lowered by the last few years, but I was extremely despondent about it and expected it to pass quietly in the same way that the illegal campaign spending and billion pound DUP deal did.
The questions the article raises about the role of monarchy are also very apt:
The article as a whole is one of the best I've seen from the BBC recently, in fact.
Would the court be giving the executive that authority, or just confirming they already have it? I am genuinely asking, as the idea of an unwritten constitution is very strange to me as an American. What legal protections exist that limit the PM's ability to advise the queen to prorogue? Or has it just been convention that it is not suspended in times of intense and important disagreement such as now? If the latter, in my opinion (again, as a foreigner) the court isn't really granting anything new - they would simply be reaffirming that yes, the PM has always had this power.
As constraining as they can be (and at times ineffectual, see our current executive), I can't help but feel an explicit written constitution is an important document for any republic.
I think most of us do. Yet the British politicians seem to be largely proud of having the "oldest" constitution although it isn't written down. It's rule by precedent and all the laws placed on the books and repealed over hundreds of years.
It works like a sort of gentleman's agreement to act in good faith and with integrity. When people suddenly stop doing that then any democracy with an old constitution is going to face issues. Like the US has been for the last couple of decades. That time has shown that the oldest written constitution is simply too hard to change and can be dismantled piece by piece if you stop following precedent in congressional procedure.
Even if we just move a generation from the late 18th century constitution the US has, to the second oldest constitution in the world, the Norwegian one (1814) a lot of those issues have been avoided because amending the constitution is a regular process that happens every couple of years. You aren't left with an outdated mess because it's too hard to change.
Although the UK and US have different issues with their constitutions, the main problem is that it's hard to know what those constitutions actually say. They're so vague and up to interpretation. Legislators aren't writing laws, so that power is delegated to the courts to interpret the few things that are actually on the books. It becomes representative democracy by judge/procedural rules-picking. And that makes it hard for the electorate to hold their representatives to account.
In both cases, whether the constitution is written, or written vaguely.
I'm not particularly well versed in UK Constitutional law, but what is the status of the Scottish highest civil court against the PM's Executive powers?