UK Parliament to be Made Redundant?

caluml writes "The Guardian is reporting that the current UK government is trying to sneak a new law though in an innocuously named bill called 'The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill,' which would get rid of that pesky, interfering need to put laws to the Houses of Commons and Lords to approve. There is already the Parliament Act that can be used to force laws through, which was used recently for the hunting bill. " The original coverage is a bit old but the bill is still being tossed around in parliament. The text of the bill is also available via the UK Parliament website.

Comments

American Dictator

[Doc Ruby]

The US has now installed both Roberts and Alito onto our Supreme Court with their "judicial philosophy" of a "unitary executive". That is, the president runs the entire government from his Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch just finds ways to interpret the president's decisions, and Congress is a medium to the public, to be informed of policy details when it suits the president.

Just this week, Bush signed into law a bill that was not Constitutional, because it had not been agreed in the same terms by both Senate and House of Representatives. So he "fixed it" with a "signing statement" declaring how he will execute the law. Signing statements have no force of law, or any existence beyond a recent ceremonial ritual. But now someone can bring this unconstitutional law before the Supreme Court, where Roberts and Alito can lead a decision to create a precedent for making the signing statement the executable law.

When the Senate confirmed Alito everyone knew he considers Congress optional. Now they've sent him the legal tools to make that the force of law. Why should the UK have all the dictator fun?

Re:American Dictator

[Doc Ruby]

I see you are insisting on quaint pre-9/11 civics notions. As I detailed, Alito and Roberts believe that the old "checks and balances" system should be replaced with the "unitary executive", unchecked (and unbalanced). Using the signing statement to declare the law gives their cabal the legal tools to enforce signing statements.

I see you're not even paying attention to impeachement. A Republican Congress can impeach a president for lying about a blowjob. But even inconsequential censure is an unacceptable Congressional action when a Republican president violates FISA and the 4th Amendment.

You act like this president, Supreme Court and Congress are like the ones that came before them: that they respect government. They don't.

mod 0P

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have thE rain..we can bE Distro is done Here

Re:The Parliament Act.

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Gah I know I shouldn't get involved, I know I shouldn't say anything, I swore I wouldn't, but Jesus H Christ on a two wheel tandem!

credibility and veracity of Ancien Regieme Tories in this principled position.

Okay let me see if I got this straight here. You have a bunch of unelected rich kids who decide what becomes law or not in your country. And thats okay with you. To quote Michael Collins, how did you people ever get an empire? People with very little in common with the common man (and I know a couple of these space cadets personally, so trust me on this) who can't be sacked, whose vested interests are, well, incredibly vested, who leant a new respectability to the concept of inbreeding, these are the yahoos you want with a veto over your laws. Their qualifications? Right surname. Now, I'm not saying this proves English people like to take it up the arse or anything, but it does lend a significant mass to the theorem, taking us one step closer to critical...