Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

uh oh. Counsel rolled up the not-enumerated article "IX of the Bill of Rights [Cherry/Auth/43/MS2893]" (1688) and fanned the SCOTUK with it: "does not define the term 'proceedings in Parliament'" such as reading of the Commission in parliament on behalf of infirm HRM.

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

  1. citing the relevant part in Cherry QC briefing, I surmise; additional citations to Law Lords and SCOTUK opinions
  2. std.-Eng. transcription of 17th cen. puritan verse, two declarations, one "article"/bullet point
  3. commentary on defects in constitutional monarchy, Britain's unwritten constitution , emphasizing the unwritten parts, namely not The Parliament Acts et seq.:
The Monarchy is one of the three components of Parliament (shorthand for the Queen-in-Parliament) along with Commons and Lords. In legal theory, the Queen has absolute and judicially unchallengeable [!] power to refuse her assent to a Bill passed by the two Houses of Parliament. However, convention dictates the precise opposite and in practice she automatically gives her assent to any government Bill that has been duly passed and agreed by Parliament. Another important convention is that government ministers must have a seat in Parliament (and, in the case of the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, specifically in the House of Commons) in order to hold office. This is a vital aspect of what is known as the 'Westminster system of parliamentary government', providing a direct form of executive responsibility and accountability to the legislature.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 at 06:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
US version of IX would be Article I, §6, ¶1 --which also positions Congress "above the law".
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
And while you're at it with the DIY comparative politics study, check Article 1, § 3 before Miss Nancy opens her ignorant, myopic, senile vision of "constitutional norms" again.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
The apple does not fall far from the tree.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 at 06:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
US version of SCOTUK's "remedy" for controversial "advice" of PM of the day ("government") does not obtain review, because the constitution explicitly proscribes jurisdiction in Article III, §2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. ...In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The constitution does not allow the judiciary any authority to adjudicate disputes ("controversy") between branches of government. Article III affirms Article I, §6, ¶1 indemnity: "they shall not be questioned in any other place." And so serial "test cases" typically fronted by Bill of Rights (1-10; civil litigants) and the current House majority party's futile attempts to delegate its authorities to the judiciary in order to circumvent constitutional authorities of POTUS, rather than revise a whole lot of contradictory federal legislation enacted by prior sessions of the odious.

archived separation of powers
Brexit: Judge rejects parliament shutdown legal challenge
smells like "SCOTUS won't touch it", case or controversy clause

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 01:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series