Democracy in Britain: The Lords’ Work
Part 2: How the “hereditary peers” enhance lawmaking and support the soft power of the UK.
The main argument against the “hereditary” peers in Britain’s House of Lords is not, oddly enough, that they are harmful to lawmaking. One would think that fundamental reforms to the composition of a legislative chamber would somehow involve its work, but few in Westminster complain about the substantive contributions of the Lords.
One of the oft-repeated criticisms is that the chamber is too large. We ominously and repeatedly hear that only the Chinese National People’s Congress has more members—but is anyone suggesting a causal link between legislative size and communism? The New Hampshire House of Representatives has four hundred members, far and away the largest state legislative chamber in America, yet the “Live Free or Die” state is one of the more libertarian in the Union.
To the contrary, a relatively large number of members is appropriate for a scrutinizing body. With more members and expertise, the better attention it can pay to legislation originating from the other chamber. Furthermore, Lord Philip Norton notes that “size is not the most pressing problem in terms of public trust. My experience is that few people outside Westminster know how many members there are of the House.”
Constitutionalism
Amicus Brief: Hon. William P. Barr and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey in Support of Petitioners
Former AGs Barr and Mukasey Cite Civitas in a SCOTUS Brief
Rational Judicial Review: Constitutions as Power-sharing Agreements, Secession, and the Problem of Dred Scott
Judicial review and originalism serve as valuable commitment mechanisms to enforce future compliance with a political bargain.
.avif)
State Courts Can’t Run Foreign Policy
Suncor is also a golden opportunity for the justices to stop local officials from interfering with an industry critical to foreign and national-security policy.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
When Can a Crass Political Remark Be Deemed an Indictable “Threat of Violence”?
When can a crass political remark be deemed an indictable “threat of violence”? When those charged with recognizing the law’s “supremacy” and the “limitations” on their authority disavow both principles.
Struck By Lightning Fifty Years Later: The Court’s Broken Promise on the Death Penalty
The Supreme Court has become the source of the very arbitrariness it set out to eliminate.
