BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

If you want to fully understand what they wrote you have to take into account what they meant when they wrote it.

It doesn't matter. What they wrote is what they wrote. We don't interpret any laws based on what might have been in the head of the author when they wrote it (and there's plenty of examples of how we can't actually do that based on people's writings), so why make an exception for the US constitution?

Yes we do. Laws in the UK are interpreted based on the intent of Parliament in making them. Since there's no objective way to read anything, how else can it be? (how else it can be is that, as in the US, the court just makes things up in order to legislate)

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

It's the latter. It's the formal statement that, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bans on SSM are an unconstitutional form of discrimination and must be done away with. Only Congress can pass laws, but the courts have some leeway to interpret the law, though usually with precedent and as narrowly as possible

The problem being that the writers of that amendment themselves would have never interpreted it that way, nor any justice who actually cared about the meaning of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is, in effect, a lawmaking body. It can create "laws" by decree, and there is no one to stop them from doing so. Everyone abides by the Supreme Court's rulings, no matter how far-fetched they are (or at least, we haven't come to a point where they are so insanely out of bounds that people might question their mental health - at that point somebody might decide that we shouldn't listen to a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life, senior citizen oligarchs).

I mean, the whole idea of judicial review was a power that the Supreme Court declared itself to have. It was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (and, in fact, Thomas Jefferson denounced the idea of the Supreme Court having such a power).

The problem with so much of the US system of government is that the founders foresaw and "denounced" so many aspects of it but were not effective in actually preventing them. The founders also denounced the party system. George Washington's farewell address is a denunciation of the possibility of the states going to war over slavery.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

If you would prefer an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, support originalist judges.

Just like, "if you would prefer the Tories to be in power, support Tory candidates".

You're right, that's how it works, and it's a way of running a country no doubt. But just so we're clear this is a legislature here, its decisions are determined purely by its composition, and its composition is determined purely politically. The most powerful body in the US is a close approximation of our House of Lords.

[Rangila]

I think Theresa will manage to fuck something up in the Brexit negotiations.

Just as she did in the election.

[Proctopeo]

I'm unwilling to take you seriously, since you call the Supreme Court a "legislature". They don't have the power to make laws; that's the House and the Senate. They have the power of interpretation and the ability to kill a law if it violates the constitution, but not the power to make them.

The Supreme Court has the power to make laws.

No, the House and the Senate have the power to make laws.

Either way, this is a bit off-topic.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The Supreme Court has the power to make laws.

No, the House and the Senate have the power to make laws.

Either way, this is a bit off-topic.

The House and Senate also have the power to make laws - both are legislatures.

The Supreme Court is the highest legislature however, because the House and Senate can only make laws if those laws are approved by a majority in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power to make laws that can only be overturned by a supermajority in the House and Senate at the same time combined with a supermajority of states. Since that's almost impossible, laws made by the House and Senate are often overturned by the Supreme Court while laws made by the Supreme Court are almost never overturned.

[Proctopeo]

No, the House and the Senate have the power to make laws.

Either way, this is a bit off-topic.

The House and Senate also have the power to make laws - both are legislatures.

The Supreme Court is the highest legislature however, because the House and Senate can only make laws if those laws are approved by a majority in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power to make laws that can only be overturned by a supermajority in the House and Senate at the same time combined with a supermajority of states. Since that's almost impossible, laws made by the House and Senate are often overturned by the Supreme Court while laws made by the Supreme Court are almost never overturned.

You have a highly butchered understanding of the American system. Do they have American Civics classes where you live, by chance? If they do, taking one would be helpful.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The House and Senate also have the power to make laws - both are legislatures.

The Supreme Court is the highest legislature however, because the House and Senate can only make laws if those laws are approved by a majority in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power to make laws that can only be overturned by a supermajority in the House and Senate at the same time combined with a supermajority of states. Since that's almost impossible, laws made by the House and Senate are often overturned by the Supreme Court while laws made by the Supreme Court are almost never overturned.

You have a highly butchered understanding of the American system. Do they have American Civics classes where you live, by chance? If they do, taking one would be helpful.

American civics classes are lies designed to maintain the illusion that the American system is old, stable, and consciously designed. It's none of those things.

The British system doesn't pretend to be either consciously designed or fully stable, but is in fact very old.

[Proctopeo]

You have a highly butchered understanding of the American system. Do they have American Civics classes where you live, by chance? If they do, taking one would be helpful.

American civics classes are lies designed to maintain the illusion that the American system is old, stable, and consciously designed. It's none of those things.

The British system doesn't pretend to be either consciously designed or fully stable, but is in fact very old.

I have even less reason to argue with you as you buy into a silly conspiracy theory unironically.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

American civics classes are lies designed to maintain the illusion that the American system is old, stable, and consciously designed. It's none of those things.

The British system doesn't pretend to be either consciously designed or fully stable, but is in fact very old.

I have even less reason to argue with you as you buy into a silly conspiracy theory unironically.

If you think I am wrong, please define a legislature and show me how the Supreme Court fails to meet that definition.

The Constitution says that the Supreme Court is not a legislature, and was intended to say that, but whether the Constitution still works as written and intended is the point in dispute, so that cannot be used as evidence.

[Frank Zipper]

Negotiations will start on Monday 19th June.

[Minoa]

Weather predicts NI and Wales will secede after Brexit (I kid of course, there is no solid plan): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40287817

[Questers]

The House and Senate also have the power to make laws - both are legislatures.

The Supreme Court is the highest legislature however, because the House and Senate can only make laws if those laws are approved by a majority in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the power to make laws that can only be overturned by a supermajority in the House and Senate at the same time combined with a supermajority of states. Since that's almost impossible, laws made by the House and Senate are often overturned by the Supreme Court while laws made by the Supreme Court are almost never overturned.

You have a highly butchered understanding of the American system. Do they have American Civics classes where you live, by chance? If they do, taking one would be helpful.

It's silly to say that in a common law system, even a codified one, that courts aren't lawmakers. If you think the Supreme Court isn't a law-making body then you have never heard of Roe v Wade and if you have never heard the term "judge-made law" you have never studied a common law system.

They don't call the Supreme Court a legislative body in the constitution because it doesn't write bills or pass acts - i.e legislation or statute. But it almost certainly makes laws. Almost all the laws that regulate our interpersonal relations, from criminal law, to the law of civil wrongs, to contract law and the law of trusts, have their origins in judge-made law, even in the United States.

QE is obviously right: while the constitution does not call the Supreme Court a legislature, it behaves as one. It writes laws. Those laws are written as judgments (which are much easier to read than bills, frankly), but they are still the law of the land. What something calls itself is much less important than what it actually does.

Look at the alternative: the US constitution turned its supreme court into a legislature that has long since destroyed the original meaning. In reality all countries are ruled by social conventions, since laws depend on language which is interpreted socially.

Seems like a better alternative to me. It's all written down in one document, albeit metaphorically.

Anyone with a working knowledge of UK constitutional law could write down the UK constitution in an afternoon. The problem is that someone else could do the same thing and include (or exclude) some parts of the constitution. Then we would have an argument about it. We might even have another civil war about it. So why bother? We almost never have constitutional crises in this country (the last one was 1911). The constitution is almost never referenced and never challenged. It has massive consensus amongst the population and is seen to be basically just. It has also survived for much longer than any other constitution on earth. So I think we are doing quite well with it, thanks.

[Questers]

If you want to fully understand what they wrote you have to take into account what they meant when they wrote it.

It doesn't matter. What they wrote is what they wrote. We don't interpret any laws based on what might have been in the head of the author when they wrote it (and there's plenty of examples of how we can't actually do that based on people's writings), so why make an exception for the US constitution?

I was taught that there are three manners in which judges interpret laws - only one of which is literally reading what Parliament wrote (literal rule). The second is the golden rule, which is used if a literal reaading would go against what the judges believe Parliament intended. The third is the mischief rule in which judges decide what problem Parliament was trying to fix and interpet the law in order to remedy that problem. Judges do actually look at the head of the author(s) when interpreting laws (and this is true in the States too).

[Salandriagado]

It doesn't matter. What they wrote is what they wrote. We don't interpret any laws based on what might have been in the head of the author when they wrote it (and there's plenty of examples of how we can't actually do that based on people's writings), so why make an exception for the US constitution?

Why have laws, the supreme law no less, if they're so malleable and open to interpretation? Seems like a recipe for disaster, tbh.

Having non-malleable laws is worse.

[Minzerland II]

Why have laws, the supreme law no less, if they're so malleable and open to interpretation? Seems like a recipe for disaster, tbh.

Having non-malleable laws is worse.

I disagree. Laws need to be fixed in their original interpretation and meaning, and if you want change, make an amendment or discard it entirely through the proper procedures.

[Questers]

In this country we have a saying, which is "if there is a will, there is a way." Laws can always be modified to suit what the people who are meant to interpret them or uphold them believe, or what the general public want. The pretense of having "non-malleable" laws just makes it more difficult when you need to do it and doesn't protect peoples rights or anything.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You have a highly butchered understanding of the American system. Do they have American Civics classes where you live, by chance? If they do, taking one would be helpful.

It's silly to say that in a common law system, even a codified one, that courts aren't lawmakers. If you think the Supreme Court isn't a law-making body then you have never heard of Roe v Wade and if you have never heard the term "judge-made law" you have never studied a common law system.

They don't call the Supreme Court a legislative body in the constitution because it doesn't write bills or pass acts - i.e legislation or statute. But it almost certainly makes laws. Almost all the laws that regulate our interpersonal relations, from criminal law, to the law of civil wrongs, to contract law and the law of trusts, have their origins in judge-made law, even in the United States.

That's all true but I'd draw a distinction between the correct role of judicial lawmaking in Common Law which is to legislate in new and uncertain areas in line as much as possible with existing precedent, and something like Roe vs Wade which was just a politically-motivated fiat imposition of a law that plainly contradicted all precedent. It's that ability to openly contradict precedent without fear that in my view makes the US Supreme Court a legislature versus a lower court (or our Supreme Court) which is not a legislature even though it can sometimes create new law.

Obviously the US Constitution did not want to permit things like Roe vs Wade and really the US military should have deposed the Supreme Court upon hearing of Roe vs Wade as the US military is supposed to be loyal to the Constitution itself and not to any of the branches of government.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Completely clear, complete and unambiguous laws would be just great!

Unfortunately they're also impossible. The US doesn't have such laws. The US Constitution was an attempt to impose a set of laws after the people who supported those laws left power, but it didn't succeed. This is in fact impossible. The only way to cement certain laws is to cement the power of people who support such laws in the land.

[Minzerland II]

In this country we have a saying, which is "if there is a will, there is a way." Laws can always be modified to suit what the people who are meant to interpret them or uphold them believe, or what the general public want.

Do you think a law ought to be subject to reinterpretation after reinterpretation? No. A law maintains its original interpretation and meaning until the time someone amends or discards it.

The pretense of having "non-malleable" laws just makes it more difficult when you need to do it

That's kinda the point.

and doesn't protect peoples rights or anything.

Do elaborate.

[Souseiseki]

scottish federation of small business owners hoping to leverage the current situation to get easy access to the single market/freedom of movement

[Great Nepal]

I'm so glad we took back control^tm from the evul European bureaucrats who'd stop May from pursuing her "ban encryption" agenda. Job well done, everyone - we've secured our rights to have our messages and traffic to be read by May, the milk association and whoever else gets access to it from one of hundreds of government department who still use windows xp.

[Vassenor]

I'm so glad we took back control^tm from the evul European bureaucrats who'd stop May from pursuing her "ban encryption" agenda. Job well done, everyone.

But you can't have a Strong and Stable country unless you know everything that everyone is doing at all times.

[Frank Zipper]

Barnier gave Davis a walking stick in the exchange of gifts. Mildly amusing.

[Ifreann]

Barnier gave Davis a walking stick in the exchange of gifts. Mildly amusing.

Shots fired!