,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Indeed. Marbury v Madison (SCOTUS) is about courts intervening to stop the legislature infringing the constitution (in the judges' view). Cherry/Miller is about the courts intervening to stop the *executive* limiting the scrutiny/control it faces from the legislature.
A closer parallel with Marbury v Madison would be litigation to require the PM to request an extension of EU membership under the Benn-Burt Act, in which the govt argued that the court should strike down the Act as invalid.
In Marbury v Madison, SCOTUS defended the power to strike down legislation because the judges believed that the legislation conflicted with the US Constitution: a "higher law" type of constitution that most States have. But constitutional law in the UK takes a different form.
Legislation can be struck down by the courts if it infringes EU law, which may account for the rumours that the government will argue that Benn-Burt infringes the PM's freedom of expression under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This is an ambitious argument, as the Benn-Burt Act does not ban the PM from expressing his opinion on the law.
Also the Charter only applies where there's a link to EU law; but EU law does not regulate the process by which the UK requests/accepts an extension of EU membership.
Also the Charter only applies where there's a link to EU law; but EU law does not regulate the process by which the UK requests/accepts an extension of EU membership.
