Is the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 invalid as submitted today in the High Court?
27 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
The economics of federalism: states as decentralized competitors and political markets
08 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
"The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint" with Judge Richard Posner
03 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in law and economics, Richard Posner Tags: constitutional law, Richard Posner, statutory interpretation
Representative democracy is a division of labour in the face of information overload
27 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, Public Choice Tags: constitutional law, constitutional political economy, public choice
John Stuart Mill had sympathy for the that parliaments are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy:
Their part is to indicate wants, to be an organ for popular demands, and a place of adverse discussion for all opinions relating to public matters, both great and small; and, along with this, to check by criticism, and eventually by withdrawing their support, those high public officers who really conduct the public business, or who appoint those by whom it is conducted
Representative democracy has the advantage of allowing the community to rely in its decision-making on the contributions of individuals with special qualifications of intelligence or character. Representative democracy makes a more effective use of resources within the citizenry to advance the common good.
Members of parliament are trustees who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue in another view. As Edmund Burke wrote:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.
You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. … Our representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
What a member of parliament is, is a legal curio. So are heads of state.
11 Aug 2014 1 Comment
in constitutional political economy, economics of crime, law and economics, property rights Tags: bribery and corruption, constitutional law, patronage
Under the Sale of Offices Act 1809, the sale of House of Commons seats was outlawed so membership of parliament must be freehold property. Prior to that 1808 Act, there is a lively trade in seats in the House of Commons: you can buy them outright, or just rent a seat for a session of Parliament.
- Being paid a salary as a member of parliament is very 20th century with the House of Representatives beating the House of Commons by 5 years.
- Back in 1695, the House of Commons resolved that offering a bribe to a Member of Parliament shall be a high crime and misdemeanour liable to impeachment, and an MP accepting such a bribe shall be a matter of privilege.
- In 1858, the House resolved to prohibit advocacy for fee or reward.
- In 1947, a further resolution banning MPs from entering agreements which restricted their freedom to act and speak, or require them to act as a representative of outside bodies.
Prior to the 19th century virtually all European civil appointments were made through outright sale or patronage, included judicial courts, public finance, sheriffs, and notaries public so the offices were freeholds – effectively private property.
Once an office had been granted it could be mortgaged, sold privately or through public auction, and bequeathed to heirs. The key source of income from most offices was the right to charge fees for service.
The buying and selling applied to army officer commissions, but never to the British navy for reasons explained by Doug Allen in his clever writings on the economics of patronage and veniality. The sale of military commissions ended in 1871.
The queen is corporation sole in perpetual succession – she or he may possess property as monarch which is distinct from the property he or she possesses personally, and may do acts as monarch distinguished from their personal acts.
Elizabeth II has several corporations sole – Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia are all distinct corporations sole. She is also a distinct corporation sole for states and provinces.
Ministers of the crown can be corporations sole. This is administratively convenient as regards the ownership of property because it facilitates continuity when the office-holder changes.
There ends today’s trivia.
In a democracy we resolve our differences by trying to persuade each other and elections
17 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments