5 ms·

> While it may technically be possible under certain circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece of legislation could be crafted that would successf

by beojan 6y ago

> While it may technically be possible under certain circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece of legislation could be crafted that would successfully override the arguments made here. Something along the lines of "The issuance of general warrants is expressly permitted," perhaps? The principles of constitutionality may be similar, but the amendment process isn't, it simply requires an Act of Parliament.

goodcanadian 6y ago
I doubt that a court would find that sufficient; it seems overly broad and therefore ambiguous, but hey, I'm not a lawyer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
"Notwithstanding the objections to their issuance by <court> on <date> and <court> on <data>, and stated explicitly so as to satisfy the reasoning of said courts, the issuance of general warrants is intended by Parliament and shall henceforth be expressly permitted"
- pmyteh 6y ago
  Parliament overruling the decision about warrant specificity is quite straightforward. The wording in the Act was somewhat ambiguous about how much specificity was required, so the court ruled that it be interpreted tightly in accordance with the principle of legality. Parliament adding a simple 'The warrant may apply to broad classes of activity and to persons not currently known to the Secretary of State' would probably be enough for that - in principle it just needs to be unambiguous that that is what Parliament intends to do. The clause attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, on the other hand, would require something a lot more vigorous. I don't know whether a clause like yours would be sufficient, but if judges can find a way around it they probably will.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    >The clause attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, on the other hand, would require something a lot more vigorous. I don't know whether a clause like yours would be sufficient, but if judges can find a way around it they probably will. The dicta in R (Jackson) v Attorney General would be instructive here.[0] The judges in that case put forth opinions suggesting that the Supreme Court may, if it came to it, disregard parliamentary sovereignty if there were limits placed on, for example, access to justice. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General#Limits_to_parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General...

by beojan 6y ago

goodcanadian 6y ago

I doubt that a court would find that sufficient; it seems overly broad and therefore ambiguous, but hey, I'm not a lawyer.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

"Notwithstanding the objections to their issuance by <court> on <date> and <court> on <data>, and stated explicitly so as to satisfy the reasoning of said courts, the issuance of general warrants is intended by Parliament and shall henceforth be expressly permitted"

pmyteh 6y ago
Parliament overruling the decision about warrant specificity is quite straightforward. The wording in the Act was somewhat ambiguous about how much specificity was required, so the court ruled that it be interpreted tightly in accordance with the principle of legality. Parliament adding a simple 'The warrant may apply to broad classes of activity and to persons not currently known to the Secretary of State' would probably be enough for that - in principle it just needs to be unambiguous that that is what Parliament intends to do. The clause attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, on the other hand, would require something a lot more vigorous. I don't know whether a clause like yours would be sufficient, but if judges can find a way around it they probably will.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >The clause attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, on the other hand, would require something a lot more vigorous. I don't know whether a clause like yours would be sufficient, but if judges can find a way around it they probably will. The dicta in R (Jackson) v Attorney General would be instructive here.[0] The judges in that case put forth opinions suggesting that the Supreme Court may, if it came to it, disregard parliamentary sovereignty if there were limits placed on, for example, access to justice. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General#Limits_to_parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General...