4 ms·

I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that ha

I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon). I don't know what can of worms it would open, but it's getting tiring when politicians just ignore the public and push forward with laws that then spend 5 years in court battles to eventually be struck down. But for those 5 years their bullshit law is active. Eg EU data retention act.

_puk 3y ago
In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against? 0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to-push-for-uk-exit-from-european-convention-of-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...
- bananapub 3y ago
  exactly, there's a lot of very weird "Everywhere Is Like The US, Presumably" commenting in this thread
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Presumably the proposal is for the UK and such places to adopt a written constitution guaranteeing certain rights to the population, and then punish government officials for violating it. The most effective version is probably not the ability to sue for damages, but rather that if the highest court rules a law unconstitutional, anyone who voted in favor of it is ineligible to run for reelection. This would both get the perpetrators out of office and make them much more cautious about violating the rights of the population.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  This issue doesn't only happen in the UK though. And for now the UK is bound by the ECHR.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  That’s a dumb way to run things, though. Lawmakers should be punished according to the most expansive definition of human rights that is plausible under the system. If the sort of constitutional/basic laws are ill defined and constantly changing, that’s problem #1 and they should be heavily incentivized to fix it.
dghf 3y ago
There is no such thing as an illegal Act of Parliament in the UK. Parliament has unfettered power to pass whatever laws it sees fit, regardless of existing laws, treaties, or whatever. (At least, that's the standard interpretation, though some authorities have suggested it's not quite as simple as that: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... for details.)
- vdqtp3 3y ago
  To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?
  - polymatter 3y ago
    Yes to my understanding. Parliament makes the laws. No court can override Parliament. No existing law binds Parliament. The only thing stopping this is how incredibly embarrassing it would be and individual MPs might lose their next election. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/ https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliame...
  - bananapub 3y ago
    > To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action? definitely. why is this surprising? countries permit all sorts of unconscionable things (the US had slavery and only banned it "except as a punishment for crime", literally has the death penalty right now) and by definition legislatures turn things from "illegal" to "legal" and vice versa constantly. the US could re-legalise slavery via a constitutional amendment any time it wanted, Ireland could ban divorce again, Australia could un-repeal Section 127, etc etc. the only difference in the UK is that there's no "basic law" / "constitution" that's harder to change than regular laws.
  - dghf 3y ago
troupo 3y ago
> legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon) Unfortunately, this cuts both ways.

_puk 3y ago

In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against? 0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to-push-for-uk-exit-from-european-convention-of-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...

bananapub 3y ago
exactly, there's a lot of very weird "Everywhere Is Like The US, Presumably" commenting in this thread
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Presumably the proposal is for the UK and such places to adopt a written constitution guaranteeing certain rights to the population, and then punish government officials for violating it. The most effective version is probably not the ability to sue for damages, but rather that if the highest court rules a law unconstitutional, anyone who voted in favor of it is ineligible to run for reelection. This would both get the perpetrators out of office and make them much more cautious about violating the rights of the population.
Aerroon 3y ago
This issue doesn't only happen in the UK though. And for now the UK is bound by the ECHR.
bee_rider 3y ago
That’s a dumb way to run things, though. Lawmakers should be punished according to the most expansive definition of human rights that is plausible under the system. If the sort of constitutional/basic laws are ill defined and constantly changing, that’s problem #1 and they should be heavily incentivized to fix it.

dghf 3y ago

There is no such thing as an illegal Act of Parliament in the UK. Parliament has unfettered power to pass whatever laws it sees fit, regardless of existing laws, treaties, or whatever. (At least, that's the standard interpretation, though some authorities have suggested it's not quite as simple as that: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... for details.)

vdqtp3 3y ago
To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?
- polymatter 3y ago
  Yes to my understanding. Parliament makes the laws. No court can override Parliament. No existing law binds Parliament. The only thing stopping this is how incredibly embarrassing it would be and individual MPs might lose their next election. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/ https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliame...
- bananapub 3y ago
  > To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action? definitely. why is this surprising? countries permit all sorts of unconscionable things (the US had slavery and only banned it "except as a punishment for crime", literally has the death penalty right now) and by definition legislatures turn things from "illegal" to "legal" and vice versa constantly. the US could re-legalise slavery via a constitutional amendment any time it wanted, Ireland could ban divorce again, Australia could un-repeal Section 127, etc etc. the only difference in the UK is that there's no "basic law" / "constitution" that's harder to change than regular laws.
- dghf 3y ago

troupo 3y ago

> legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon) Unfortunately, this cuts both ways.