3 ms·

I have to disagree. Not only does it seem completely lawful to me, you'll notice that none of the justices could cite an actual law that was violated. Their s

I have to disagree. Not only does it seem completely lawful to me, you'll notice that none of the justices could cite an actual law that was violated. Their summary makes this a bit clearer - "...was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification." They never actually indicate any law that has been violated. Just sort of a general assertion that it was an asshole, undemocratic move that they have now declared to be "illegal". Furthermore, I remember when it was originally announced that he was considering doing this and every single lawyer, pundit, and news outlet that I read said very clearly that while it was "unthinkable" it was completely legal and he had every right to do so with the power of his position/office.

jfk13 7y ago
> Not only does it seem completely lawful to me Interesting. Do you have extraordinary legal qualifications that make your opinion more valid than the unanimous judgment of the highest court in the land?
- turc1656 7y ago
  Ah yes, the old "you're not a lawyer so your opinion is worthless" argument. As I mentioned, every single thing I read by legal professionals leading up to this decision said it was entirely legal. I am not a UK citizen, let alone an expert in UK law. But I read up on it and I can follow my own path of logic based on what they described the law to be. Also, let's not pretend like the courts get things right all the time. Even the "highest court in the land" fucks up all the time. Same here in the US. The judges are just as biased as everyone else. The law on this isn't even complicated. The Queen, not Boris Johnson, has the power to prorogue parliament. Therefore the request that she do so cannot be an illegal act by Boris Johnson. That's really simple logic to follow. And the Queen is immune from legal process so no act done by her can be deemed illegal which is why the court ruled that it was the advice/request that was illegal. This insane logic is just as outrageous as the actual request to prorogue parliament made by Johnson.
dadarepublic 7y ago
What a horrible, biased analysis. Please cite your legal resources that would contradict the highest court in the UK who unanimously agreed that this was, in fact, illegal.
- dang 7y ago
  I'm afraid your comments have been repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Would you please look them over and stick to the rules when posting to HN? We'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- turc1656 7y ago
  Biased how? Because I disagree with you? And the courts always get things right, yeah? Especially when it's a rushed decision based on an urgent and time sensitive event? Also, I have no skin in the UK game at all. I'm not a citizen and don't give a shit who's in power over there. I'm just an outside observer with a tub of popcorn. The court ruled that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and she was the one who actually has the power to prorogue parliament. The Queen is exempt from the legal process and as Queen everything she does within her powers is assumed to be legal. The courts know this, which is why they want the crazy route to declare Johnson's advice/request to be the thing that was illegal. It's absurd.
pmyteh 7y ago
British law is not all statute; some of it is "common law", which is essentially judge-made caselaw. The prorogation does not contravene statute, and wasn't held to. There is a long line of caselaw going back to the 1600s about the relationship of the Crown to Parliament which have been held to limit executive power, though. The court today held that the constitutional rule limiting royal power works to prevent prorogation under the circumstances seen this year. Although the result is novel, this isn't particularly unusual for how the British legal systems work. Similar in principle to DC v Heller in the US Supreme Court, I suspect: the second amendment is known, but what is means for a particular DC handgun law isn't obvious until SCOTUS rules. The same here: the principle that the Crown can't use the prerogative to frustrate Parliament is now well established (starting with the Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22) but it hadn't been tested in court whether that applied to these circumstances. Now we know.

jfk13 7y ago

> Not only does it seem completely lawful to me Interesting. Do you have extraordinary legal qualifications that make your opinion more valid than the unanimous judgment of the highest court in the land?

turc1656 7y ago
Ah yes, the old "you're not a lawyer so your opinion is worthless" argument. As I mentioned, every single thing I read by legal professionals leading up to this decision said it was entirely legal. I am not a UK citizen, let alone an expert in UK law. But I read up on it and I can follow my own path of logic based on what they described the law to be. Also, let's not pretend like the courts get things right all the time. Even the "highest court in the land" fucks up all the time. Same here in the US. The judges are just as biased as everyone else. The law on this isn't even complicated. The Queen, not Boris Johnson, has the power to prorogue parliament. Therefore the request that she do so cannot be an illegal act by Boris Johnson. That's really simple logic to follow. And the Queen is immune from legal process so no act done by her can be deemed illegal which is why the court ruled that it was the advice/request that was illegal. This insane logic is just as outrageous as the actual request to prorogue parliament made by Johnson.

dadarepublic 7y ago

What a horrible, biased analysis. Please cite your legal resources that would contradict the highest court in the UK who unanimously agreed that this was, in fact, illegal.

dang 7y ago
I'm afraid your comments have been repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Would you please look them over and stick to the rules when posting to HN? We'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
turc1656 7y ago
Biased how? Because I disagree with you? And the courts always get things right, yeah? Especially when it's a rushed decision based on an urgent and time sensitive event? Also, I have no skin in the UK game at all. I'm not a citizen and don't give a shit who's in power over there. I'm just an outside observer with a tub of popcorn. The court ruled that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and she was the one who actually has the power to prorogue parliament. The Queen is exempt from the legal process and as Queen everything she does within her powers is assumed to be legal. The courts know this, which is why they want the crazy route to declare Johnson's advice/request to be the thing that was illegal. It's absurd.

pmyteh 7y ago

British law is not all statute; some of it is "common law", which is essentially judge-made caselaw. The prorogation does not contravene statute, and wasn't held to. There is a long line of caselaw going back to the 1600s about the relationship of the Crown to Parliament which have been held to limit executive power, though. The court today held that the constitutional rule limiting royal power works to prevent prorogation under the circumstances seen this year. Although the result is novel, this isn't particularly unusual for how the British legal systems work. Similar in principle to DC v Heller in the US Supreme Court, I suspect: the second amendment is known, but what is means for a particular DC handgun law isn't obvious until SCOTUS rules. The same here: the principle that the Crown can't use the prerogative to frustrate Parliament is now well established (starting with the Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22) but it hadn't been tested in court whether that applied to these circumstances. Now we know.