4 ms·
We don't have a constitution, you mean a change of legal precedent. I agree that's its and awful precedent to set. But it's already been done with Parliament de
by Snow_Falls 3y ago
We don't have a constitution, you mean a change of legal precedent. I agree that's its and awful precedent to set. But it's already been done with Parliament declaring Rwanda safe, changing convictions doesn't seem so beyond the pale. I'm honestly not sure what else to do about it though. The sheer scale of incompetence and cover up in the post office and the software company will likely take years to sort through. Can the victims really wait that long? What is the alternative? Having everyone convicted file an appeal? After everything they've already gone through? Frankly, just wiping the slate clean and getting rid of all the convictions seem like the good move to me.
- VBprogrammer 3y ago> We don't have a constitution We don't have a written constitution. The sum of legal presidents, procedures and conventions is our constitution.
- denton-scratch 3y agoIf courts interpret legislation passed by Parliament in a way that Parliament thinks is not what it intended, then the correct thing to do is to pass superceding legislation to clarify the matter. That's not a violation of the separation of powers; that's what's supposed to happen.