Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5
th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
Parliamentary sovereignty is not the same as absolute control - nor should it be. Parliamentary sovereignty, like royal prerogative, is bounded by Law, and the only difference between having a Bill of Rights and not having one is that the fundamental tenets of Law as required are laid down formally in a Bill, rather than being a free-for-all.
It is bound by convention - unspoken rules mainly, but yes it is governed by rules.
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5
th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
Even then, those tenets and rights are still open to interpretation, and then to precedence, which can be a dire situation once any legislation has been falsely permitted to pass through by a lower and "less" qualified court. In this state, it is not uncommon for some JP from a local real estate agency to sit for a day in a court - you can just imagine the kinds of decisions such a person would make, and I can give you examples of how out of their depth they are.
No legislation is perfect, and no legislation can cover every tenet.
I understand your point of view: you want to ensure that all legislation is good, so do I; but any attempt to impose additional checks to legislation will invariably make it harder for a good government to pass good legislation (as you or I might define it). The key feature of the Westminster is its efficiency.
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 5
th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
I was responding to bogarde's comment.... not referring to you, you narcissist.
So, you sill resort to name-calling.