Law According To A King

 Impeachment is the process by which the House of Representatives votes by a majority to level charges against a federal official, in this case, the President. These charges are then brought to the Senate, where the 100 senators hold a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and vote on whether to convict. A 2/3 majority of 67 votes is required to convict, and a conviction will remove the official from office. There are a number of Constitutional sources detailing the impeachment process: Article 1, section 2, clause 5  "The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment" Article 1, section 3, clauses 6 and 7  "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments... [N]o person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office."  Article 2, section 2  The President [shall have Power to grant R...

This year has been particularly challenging for us all. COVID-19, the Black Lives Matter movement, an environmental crisis, an economic recession, and growing uncertainty throughout the world of politics. Unity is increasingly a hopeless concept, but in politics, unity is rarely apparent, nor desirable.  In Prime Minister's Questions on June 3rd , Boris Johnson attacked the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, for his criticism of the government's approach to tackling coronavirus. Johnson accused Starmer of undermining trust in the government through his questions regarding the failures of the track-and-trace system, but was the Leader of the Opposition seeking to undermine and discredit the government, or was he seeking to hold the government to account? It is taken for granted in a democracy that leaders disagree, and not always is this disagreement responsible or constructive - indeed, David Cameron was a frequent critic of the "Punch and Judy" politics of P...

"You've chosen to be the president's lawyer," declared Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono to Bill Barr in the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Attorney General testified on his handling of the Mueller Report. Since his appointment in 2019 after the firing of Jeff Sessions, Barr has led the US Department of Justice and acted as the nation's top law enforcement official for his second time, after a two-year tenure under George H W Bush. His expansive view of executive powers and his apparent partisan actions have drawn a great deal of criticism, particularly in his last congressional hearing two days ago on the current unrest across the US following the murder of George Floyd earlier in the year. Barr's direction to federal officers to use chemical weapons, including tear gas and pepper bombs, and violent tactics against protestors, most infamously to move demonstrators away from Lafayette Park to allow for the President's photo op, drew particular ire from Rep....

In Tennessee Williams's play 'A Streetcar Named Desire' the protagonist Blanche DuBois finds herself living with her sister and brother-in-law after she loses her house and livelihood. Blanche, throughout the play, slowly descends into madness, as she is abused by her sister's husband and haunted by the death of her former lover. At the end, when she is taken away to a mental institution, Blanche softly says to the doctor "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." As a woman who has spent her life hounded by the stark injustices of her situation, Blanche has depended on the kindness of strangers to offer her comfort where there is none, a home when she has lost her own, a job when she has been dismissed, and love where she cannot find some, but it is this same dependence that allows Blanche to be inherently vulnerable to those she depends on: the lover who kills himself, breaking her heart; the sister who gives her away to a hospital; the brother-i...

What is the rule of law? In my opinion, it does not exist. It simply cannot exist. There are too many contradictions, too many gaps, and too many criteria that even the most utopian society could not declare itself subject to the rule of law. But to disregard it, we must first understand what it claims to be. Nick Barber wrote that the rule of law “asks what it means to be governed by law, rather than men.” The first societies decided their own unofficial laws based on the ideas of their leaders, whereas the first civilisations decided their laws based on the ideas of their people, with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago. For a period of about 2 million years, hominid groups (primarily hunter-gatherers) appeared to have distributed justice based on the views of a council of elders, or often a simple individual Their laws were likely based on superstition, natural ideas of justice, and the hocus-pocus of the leaders themselves. When civilisations were developed, while brutalis...

The US Supreme Court is likely better known to readers than any other court on the planet. Its hyper-politicised confirmation hearings, nation-changing judgments, and larger-than-life characters have thrown the Court to the forefront of national and international news and consciousness. Whereas in the UK, gay marriage could be attributed to the support of the Prime Minister David Cameron and his coalition partners in the Liberal Democrats, in the US, it is attributed to the Court's 'liberal' wing and the swing-Justice Kennedy - just one example of the difference between the two systems. Nevertheless, whilst Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brett Kavanaugh may have captured your attention, there are still seven more judges on the Court that you need to know. To illustrate their approach to constitutional interpretation, I have included a very brief analysis of their positions on four key issues: abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, executive power, and campaign finance reform. ...

Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court ruled on what is possibly the most important constitutional law case in a generation. In the case of R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, the court handed down a judgment that we will be seeing the reverberations of for decades to come. It is an intensely political case, but the court were keen to set aside partisanship and rule simply on the law as they saw it. You may recall, a few weeks ago when Johnson announced the prorogation of Parliament, I wrote a post saying that it was a legal exercise of the prerogative powers, but evidently I was too hasty in making this judgment. Lady Hale, the President of the court, handed down a unanimous judgment that declared the prorogation was illegal, and thus, in effect, didn't happen at all. But let's look at how they came to this decision, and the key parts of their judgment... For some background: The UK decided in a referendum in 2016 to leave the EU. Whilst the result was not legally bind...