This remind me of the HADOPI law in France. First, the parliament vote the law. That law is rejected, on the grounds that it does not respect the French const

This remind me of the HADOPI law in France. First, the parliament vote the law. That law is rejected, on the grounds that it does not respect the French constitution. (Among other things, there was the fact that cutting off an internet connection amounts to sever the freedom of expression of the accused. Only a Judge is supposed to be able to do that, and the HADOPI law didn't involve one.) Second, they vote the law again, deferring the anti-constitutional parts to the application decrees. This law is now applied, despite many thorny problems (not respecting the presumption of innocence is one of them).