(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] devilgate.livejournal.com at 09:39am on 21/03/2006
Fair points all, and you have obviously considered this with a clearer head than I. Do you think I should modify (or take down) my "Revolution!" post, then?

What do you think about the fact that on its face, no existing Act is beyond the reach of the new bill? Some commentators are saying that "constitutional" laws like the Bill of Rights and of course the Human Rights Act should be explicitly named on this bill as being outwith its influence.

This is all, of course, part of the problem with not having a written constitution.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
zotz: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] zotz at 10:13am on 21/03/2006
Well, I don't like the bill, and in particular the fact that its scope is so wide is very unwise. Listing bills as constitutional might work, but arguably they've already tried with the bar on removing "essential safeguards". That dumps it into the judiciary's hands, and while it's a damn sight better than nothing, I don't see it as an adequate substitute for just not passing the thing.

Written constitution. Yes. Seems like a very good idea, overall.
[link] [parent] [reply]

September

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
1
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30