Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Interestingly, this case has many parallels with U.S. vs. Nixon in 1974.  In both cases the executive was arguing that, if it said so, it was subject to the supervision of neither the legislative nor judicial branch.  In both cases the respective supreme court unanimously said, "Umm, no."  If only there were a chance of today's SCOTUS ruling thus.
by rifek on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 08:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't.

First of all, indictment, trial, and jurisdiction of POTUS removal from office is expressly prescribed by the US constitution.

Show me that equivalence in UK "constitutional" law --perhaps an article of the Bill of Rights?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK Supreme Court judgement sought the removal of no office holder, it merely found that in the UK Parliamentary sovereignty is supreme and that acts by the Executive (even with Royal assent) are justiciable.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 11:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read the full judgment, quoted and commented on it at length.

I anticipated conference interruption and UK ELECTION 2019.

I have compared US and UK government constitution in the relevant parts. All US representatives swear an oath to the supreme law of the land.

I ask, What act of [the Crown in] Parliament provides removal of the PM (so-called executive)? because there some folks shining SCOTUK brilliance.

55. ...The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cat:"What act of [the Crown in] Parliament provides removal of the PM (so-called executive)? because there some folks shining SCOTUK brilliance."

To my knowledge there is neither such a specific act nor clear common law precedent. The UK is faced with a novel situation here. (Imagine that! The ancestors did not think of everything.) There is, however, the ancient common law tradition that, in such cases, the sovereign 'finds' the law. Parliament is the sovereign, so it will be up to Parliament to find the law.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 03:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK has an unwritten constitution and a body of law derived from tradition and acts of the sovereign. For there to be a law prescribing how to remove a rogue PM, some Parliament would have had to have passed that law. Absent exigent circumstances such as the present situation, as the saying goes:"Turkeys don't vote for Christmas." Nor would Monarchs ever have decreed the method by which they could be removed.

It took the entirety of the Stuart Dynasty to establish the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. It was only during the time of the latter Stuart monarchs that political parties emerged as self conscious entities. And, until the first decades of the 20th Century the House of Lords remained hereditary. At least the UK now has the examples of other governments styling themselves as democratic to which it can look for practical examples of alternate forms of government.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
dissolves all of [the Crown in] parliament but ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 12:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
U.S vs. Nixon was not an impeachment case.  It was a separation of powers case in which the SCOTUS ruled unanimously 1) that the president was not the final arbiter on whether he had to respond to a Congressional subpoena, and 2) that he in fact had to respond.
by rifek on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 05:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but that ruling occurred in the context of an ongoing impeachment investigation.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 08:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but they were not ruling on any substantive issue on impeachment but rather on whether the executive could avoid supervision, hence my comparison to the UK decision.
by rifek on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 10:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Marbury v. Madison

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 11:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series