Chit Chat
"Supreme" Court created by Tony Blair?
|
By:
Gina Miller with all her money bags has stopped the will of the people.
|
|
By:
"They are never going to leave but its entertaining watching them try" who said that last march?
|
|
By:
Theodore Bagwell?
Or Brad Bellick? |
|
By:
You appear to have missed that everyone agreed that courts can decide
'whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent.' The courts do not - until this week - decide the extent of the power. The courts decide whether a law passed by parliament should be used to deal with a case rather than the prerogative power. In the cases cited in the judgement ( De Keyser's Hotel etc ) the use of prerogative power was deemed unlawful because there was statutory law created by parliament that covered those cases. There is no example given of a prerogative power being restricted by the courts without it clashing with statutory law. Here there was no law whatever restricting prorogation. |
|
By:
All 11 are SPIVS many in the pay of the eu - check it out - you will be amazed.
|
|
By:
Think the tory conference is in Manchester next week terry. Just so anx can pay a visit.
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
'courts can decide whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent'
And, for centuries, they have decided this by examining whether the use of prerogative power clashes with laws passed by parliament. Every case cited in the judgement seems to have this in common. What this judgement does though is say ; 'Here, look at all these cases where the executive used prerogative power and the courts ruled it unlawful. So we can do that in this case too.' But those cases are all profoundly different as the use of prerogative clashed with parliamentary laws. With the De Keyser hotel the War Office took the building over in the middle of WWI using prerogative power and were not keen to compensate the owners very much. The legal judgement was that an act of parliament covered such things and so 'once the statute had been enacted the prerogative powers fell into abeyance, for the duration of the life of its provisions should the statute be replaced or amended or modified' Here there was no statute covering prorogation. |
|
By:
Personally I was not in favour of the prorogation, did not see what good it could accomplish, and would be fine with laws restricting it's use. But it has to be restricted by parliament, or a written constitution, not on an ad hoc basis by judges.
|
|
By:
The main issue is that the reason given for prorogation was not true so therefore he lied to the Queen.
|
|
By:
Yeah it was BS but is there a law against lying to the Queen ?
|