Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/124

< Wy

31.357Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Share

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

Research on Parliamentary Privilege Concurrently Discuss Chinese National People's Congressional Privilege

von Weizhong Yi

vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
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

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
WiseWoman
Gesichtet
Yes.png
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:
On this issue the court’s jurisdiction cannot be doubted. This question of statutory interpretation is properly cognisable by a court of law even though it relates to the legislative process. Statutes create law. 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 cognisance (jurisdiction) over its own affairs.264

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.

Anmerkungen

Identisch, bis auf 3 Buchstaben.

Sichter
(WiseWoman) Singulus


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20130914154928

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki