Everybody in Miller loves Dicey, judging by the publication of counsel’s arguments ahead of next week’s Supreme Court hearing. But it was not always thus and simply quoting more and more of Albert Venn Dicey’s 1885 tome, in any of its editions, on Parliamentary sovereignty is not enough. The challenge in Miller is not what Dicey meant by Parliamentary sovereignty but what is the status of any constitutional doctrine, what is the reason why it is a part of the constitution and how might it change. These are jurisprudential questions.
To enhance enjoyment of Dicey’s forthcoming appearance in the Supreme Court, therefore, I reflect on two largely forgotten critiques of Dicey, then recount the story of his last (and also rarely appreciated) appearance, in a different sense, in our highest court, before drawing attention to a relatively unheralded comment on Dicey and the constitution by someone who is now a…
View original post 2,265 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments