Here we go again….1642

David Davis


It may be the only solution. We will have to get Parliament back from itself.

2 responses to “Here we go again….1642

  1. Emmett Smith

    There is of course a longer cycle going on in the US constitutional comedy, in which US Presidents successively appoint lifetime Supreme Court justices. Naturally, these appointments reflect the party biases and “ideology” (notions) of the individual President. So, the Court is as “loaded” as the other two branches. But, often as not, in a compensatory or counter-balancing way. Also, what amounts to endless appeals can and do go on. Needless to say, the electorate in principle chooses Congresses and Presidents, and so sovereignty is “the People’s.” (Apart from the thorny problem of computerized voting-fraud…?) At any rate, the “final” authority of the Supreme Court isn’t all that absolute, and the Founders mainly saw the thing, I believe, as an additional makeweight against both mass and presidential /idiocy/, both of which are relatively ephemeral and proceed on a shorter beat.

    The big thing is that “the People” keep their shirts on and NOT trade any territorial citizen sovereignty to yet larger entities, also ephemeral as well as atopical, such as the “U”N.

  2. Looking at the piece in The Times, an excerpt:

    In the US, the Supreme Court established ultimate sovereignty over Congress. As early as 1803, in the case of Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court successfully asserted the right to strike down statutes which it held to be inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court consists of judges with no constituencies and no retirement age. They are more remote than Congressmen from the public, who have no way to dismiss them. If we follow the American line, the final decisions will be made, not even by the British Supreme Court, but by the European Court of Justice, which will be even more remote from British voters.

    The morale of the Commons has of course been shaken by the expenses scandal. I have never seen a comparable loss of confidence. Any healthy institution wants to extend its own authority. The Parliamentary Standards Bill is seeking to deal with a problem which is only too real. Yet the remedy which has been proposed is to reduce the existing rights and functions of the House of Commons, including self-regulation. This is a move in the wrong direction. If the Commons cannot restore its reputation by doing its job better, it will certainly not do so by demonstrating its lack of confidence in its own authority.

    I had been wondering what all the expenses row was about. Nothing makes main media major coverage without there being an agenda somewhere. Is all revealed? Does it seem its been about establishing the power of the EU Parliament in Britain ?