What's A Pain That You Actually Like?
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Suspension Of Parliament Ruled Unlawful.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bigbad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not aware that there *was* a prorogation in 1945 -- source please?
But in any case, it probably wasn't. The Court found that this particular prorogation is unlawful because its purpose was "to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of executive action", particularly with regards to Brexit, as opposed to merely winding up for a Queen's Speech.
The best historical precedent I can find is probably from 1831, in the run-up to the 1832 Great Reform Act. Can also find examples in 1948 and 1997.
But in any case, it probably wasn't. The Court found that this particular prorogation is unlawful because its purpose was "to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of executive action", particularly with regards to Brexit, as opposed to merely winding up for a Queen's Speech.
The best historical precedent I can find is probably from 1831, in the run-up to the 1832 Great Reform Act. Can also find examples in 1948 and 1997.
Legal process follows after someone kicks something off to query it. This is an example of why I claim judges make law. If the law was clear when created there would be no need to appeal, and verdicts would simply be confirmed if an appeal was made.
Here we see what we all believed the law was and should be being confirmed by lower courts because someone wanted to try it on and kicked the process off. Now we have the highest Scottish court trying to make the law different as a different interpretation is their preferred one. But ultimately the public are right to condemn the chancers querying the accepred situation in the first place. It'll encourage it to happen frequently and then where will we be ?
Here we see what we all believed the law was and should be being confirmed by lower courts because someone wanted to try it on and kicked the process off. Now we have the highest Scottish court trying to make the law different as a different interpretation is their preferred one. But ultimately the public are right to condemn the chancers querying the accepred situation in the first place. It'll encourage it to happen frequently and then where will we be ?
From the judgement, danny: "prorogating Parliament... would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law."
So, that law.
http://
So, that law.
http://
Prorogation is not unlawful because no law governs the exercise of priministerial power in such cases. The session court determined that its exercise in this case was cynical (which it was).
But the judges are there to uphold law, not to punish legal behaviour which is immoral, otherwise half of Parliament led by the Speaker would be heading to the tower.
But the judges are there to uphold law, not to punish legal behaviour which is immoral, otherwise half of Parliament led by the Speaker would be heading to the tower.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.