Day: July 18, 2019

Tom Spencer: The Sovereignty of Parliament, the Rule of Law, and the High Court of Parliament

UK Constitutional Law Association

Introduction

The treatment of ouster clauses in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal has been said to violate parliamentary sovereignty.  This post disagrees.  That assertion, it argues, misapprehends the rule of law as founded upon the sovereignty of ‘Parliament’ by ‘the High Court of Parlyament’ as recognised in the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689.  The separation of the supreme court from the legislature in O’Connell v R, and the creation of the Supreme Court by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, undo neither the parliamentary character of the Court nor its participation in the sovereignty of Parliament.  This view supports the dicta of Lord Carnwath in Privacy International, with whom Lady Hale and Lord Kerr agreed, that courts may refuse to recognise or enforce ouster clauses.

A Brief Chronology

In the seventeenth century the supreme court of England and Wales was part of ‘Parliament’. …

View original post 1,891 more words

A passionate argument by Van Jones for free speech on campus

Why Evolution Is True

In this clip from the University of Chicago’s continuing Institute of Politics (IOP) discussions, CNN commenter Van Jones gives one of the best and most stirring arguments for free speech on college campuses that I’ve seen. Really stirring, especially for an extemporaneous answer to a question.  My favorite bit is this:

“My parents, and Monica Elizabeth Peek’s parents, marched; they dealt with fire hoses; they dealt with dogs; they dealt with beatings. You can’t deal with a mean tweet?”

Here’s the IOP description:

Clip from an event at the Institute of Politics with CNN commentators S.E. Cupp and Van Jones in conversation with IOP Director David Axelrod on the current state of politics in America. This event was part of “America in the Trump Era,” the IOP’s look at the changes – cultural, policy, media and otherwise – coming under a Trump administration.

This should be…

View original post 10 more words

Now Inside Higher Education has a hit piece on Pinker

Why Evolution Is True

I used to think that InsideHigher Ed (IHE) was a pretty objective forum for reporting news from academia. But now, it seems, they’re going the way of BuzzFeed, publishing what is essentially a hit piece on Steve Pinker that, starting with his trivial assistance to Alan Dershowitz in the first prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for sex crimes (Pinker interpreted the language of a statute, for chrissake), goes on to dredge up all the other accusations of Pinker from the last several years: he’s white, male, old, a sexist, and his scholarship is deficient. In other words, it goes beyond the ambit of the news to once again thrust a sword into Pinker. You can read the piece by clicking on the screenshot below.  Yes, I know where the title of the piece comes from, but it makes absolutely no sense to me in this context.

Note the prominent use…

View original post 1,374 more words

Epstein on Segregation and Exploitation in the Old South

From https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2010/09/06/segregation-and-exploitation-in-the-old-south/#504ebeaf7380

On the practical irrelevance of moral philosophers (activists and even feminists) to social reform