von Weizhong Yi
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Wy/Fragment 124 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 15:48:08 Graf Isolan | Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 2007, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 124, Zeilen: 1-22, 101-102 |
Quelle: Griffith_2007 Seite(n): 70, Zeilen: 16ff |
|---|---|
| Whether that argument would have applied if the Court of Appeal had found the 1949 amending Act invalid is another matter. For its part, the House of Lords upheld the validity of that legislation on very different grounds. In doing so, it avoided the potential pitfalls the Court of Appeal might have set for itself in respect to the review of parliamentary proceedings. For the House of Lords, judicial review was held to be constitutionally legitimate in this instance, since the courts were not investigating the internal workings of Parliament but were determining whether the 1949 and 2004 Acts were enacted law.373
On this issue the court’s jurisdiction cannot be doubted. This question of statutory interpretation is properly cognizable by a court of law even though it relates to the legislative process. Statutes create laws. [sic] The proper interpretation of a statute is a matter for the courts, not Parliament. This principle is as fundamental in this country’s constitution as the principle that Parliament has exclusive cognizance (jurisdiction) over its own affairs. In essence, the case was reducible to a question of statutory interpretation, about which Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated: 374 That s 2(2) of the 1911 Act, providing for the Speaker to certify that the requirements of the Act had been duly complied with, was not in dispute. At issue was s 2(1) of the 1911 Act which laid down the circumstances in which, save for stated exceptions, ‘any public Bill’ could be enacted without the consent of the House of Lords. The term ‘any’ was given a broad meaning and it was held to refer in this context to primary, not secondary, legislation. 373 [2005] 3 WLR 733 at para. 27 (Lord Bingham of Cornhill). 374 [2005] 3 WLR 733 at para. 51. |
Whether that argument would have applied if the Court of Appeal had found the 1949 amending Act invalid is another matter. For its part, the House of Lords upheld the validity of that legislation on very different grounds. In doing so, it avoided the potential pitfalls the Court of Appeal might have set for itself in respect to the review of parliamentary proceedings. For the House of Lords, judicial review was held to be constitutionally legitimate in this instance, since the courts were not investigating the internal workings of Parliament but were determining whether the 1949 and 2004 Acts were enacted law.263 In essence, the case was reducible to a question of statutory interpretation, about which Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated:
That s 2(2) of the 1911 Act, providing for the Speaker to certify that the requirements of the Act had been duly complied with, was not in dispute. At issue was s 2(1) of the 1911 Act which laid down the circumstances in which, save for stated exceptions, ‘any public Bill’ could be enacted without the consent of the House of Lords. The term ‘any’ was given a broad meaning and it was held to refer in this context to primary, not secondary, legislation. 263 [2005] 3 WLR 733 at para 27 (Lord Bingham of Cornhill). 264 [2005] 3 WLR 733 at para 51. |
Identisch, bis auf 3 Buchstaben. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20130914154928