(no subject)

I have just had one of those jaw cracker yawns that has left tears streaming down my face; the coffee hasn't kicked in, yet.

For some reason I woke up at 4.45 this morning to find that my head was propped on my hand as if I had gone to sleep while listening to music, although I know I didn't. In my half awake state, it seemed as though I could hear something in my room, but I think it was just the remnants of a dream. The fact that the bulb blew in my bedside light at the moment I turned it on served to disorient me further.

I think I went back to sleep quite quickly, but I woke up this morning clutching my torch, which suggests that I tried to change the bulb and then gave up. All a bit strange, and rather frustrating because I have no idea what I was dreaming about last night. If I could it might go some way to explaining this bizarre little sequence of events.

Anyway, the coffee seems to be working a bit better now; I read somewhere that milk lows the caffeine hit. Maybe from now on the first cup of the day will be black. But I'll probably forget.

(no subject)

I have just had one of those jaw cracker yawns that has left tears streaming down my face; the coffee hasn't kicked in, yet.

For some reason I woke up at 4.45 this morning to find that my head was propped on my hand as if I had gone to sleep while listening to music, although I know I didn't. In my half awake state, it seemed as though I could hear something in my room, but I think it was just the remnants of a dream. The fact that the bulb blew in my bedside light at the moment I turned it on served to disorient me further.

I think I went back to sleep quite quickly, but I woke up this morning clutching my torch, which suggests that I tried to change the bulb and then gave up. All a bit strange, and rather frustrating because I have no idea what I was dreaming about last night. If I could it might go some way to explaining this bizarre little sequence of events.

Anyway, the coffee seems to be working a bit better now; I read somewhere that milk lows the caffeine hit. Maybe from now on the first cup of the day will be black. But I'll probably forget.

It's not over till the fat lady sings....

I hear on the news that the Countryside Alliance plan to use the courts challenge the legality of the newly passed ban on hunting foxes with dogs.

Over in s0b's journal today he simply states that the lost, and that they should just accept the situation, but it may not be that simple.

This is interesting, because the ban was forced through Parliament using the Parliament Act 1948 which allows the House Commons to over rule the House of Lords if it continually blocks the will of the Commons. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of fox hunting, the constitutional position of the ban is potentially quite muddy. It all depends upon the view the courts take, because the position is not quite as cut and dried as you might think.

There is a fundamental principle in English Law (maybe november_girl can look this up...?) that a body cannot extend powers delegated to it without reference to the delegating body. The original Parliament Act of (I think) 1911 was properly passed by both Houses of Parliament (under threat to swamp the Lords with specially-created Liberal Lords if they did not comply, it has to be said), but the 1948 Act was rejected by the Lords, and pushed through using the 1911 Act. The Parliament Act of 1948 is arguably therefore void, both because it was never properly ratified, and breaches the law on extending delegated power, though this has never, until now, been tested in the courts.

The alternative view is that while this may be true, the fact that it has remained unchallenged for 54 years means that is now de facto valid legislation.

The point is, the principle has never been tested in the courts and has a number of potential constitutional repercussions. Should the courts strike the Act down as unconstitutional, all legislation passed using the Parliament Act 1948 would immediately become invalid, too and disappear from the statute book. Because of the potential constitutional impact, the High Court could conceivably regard the matter as outside its bailiwick and refer the matter up to a higher court for decision.

That would be the House of Lords.

It's not over till the fat lady sings....

I hear on the news that the Countryside Alliance plan to use the courts challenge the legality of the newly passed ban on hunting foxes with dogs.

Over in s0b's journal today he simply states that the lost, and that they should just accept the situation, but it may not be that simple.

This is interesting, because the ban was forced through Parliament using the Parliament Act 1948 which allows the House Commons to over rule the House of Lords if it continually blocks the will of the Commons. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of fox hunting, the constitutional position of the ban is potentially quite muddy. It all depends upon the view the courts take, because the position is not quite as cut and dried as you might think.

There is a fundamental principle in English Law (maybe november_girl can look this up...?) that a body cannot extend powers delegated to it without reference to the delegating body. The original Parliament Act of (I think) 1911 was properly passed by both Houses of Parliament (under threat to swamp the Lords with specially-created Liberal Lords if they did not comply, it has to be said), but the 1948 Act was rejected by the Lords, and pushed through using the 1911 Act. The Parliament Act of 1948 is arguably therefore void, both because it was never properly ratified, and breaches the law on extending delegated power, though this has never, until now, been tested in the courts.

The alternative view is that while this may be true, the fact that it has remained unchallenged for 54 years means that is now de facto valid legislation.

The point is, the principle has never been tested in the courts and has a number of potential constitutional repercussions. Should the courts strike the Act down as unconstitutional, all legislation passed using the Parliament Act 1948 would immediately become invalid, too and disappear from the statute book. Because of the potential constitutional impact, the High Court could conceivably regard the matter as outside its bailiwick and refer the matter up to a higher court for decision.

That would be the House of Lords.