Prime Hydration Drink

Product Information

a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course.”[50] Nelson, Sara C (10 September 2019). "Parliament Prorogued: Scuffles And Bursts of Song As MPs Protest Shutdown". HuffPost UK. Overhear: The product is bought NOT through paid media channels like IG (post an ad, watch it run) but rather through some means of hearing about the product, either virally or digitally. Kids who bought Prime Hydration heard about it on social channels, saw their friends drink it at school – or even watched a Logan Paul influencer-laden video. “I must have this product that I’ve heard so much about, and it verily must be the bee’s knees” (how I imagine a 12-year-old thinks). Which leads to: At the end of the third hearing day, there were many questions from the Justices about potential remedies. This may have been an early indication that the Judges were considering this point in detail. In its judgment, the Supreme Court went beyond the declaration sought by the Claimant and held that the prorogation itself and not merely the advice had been unlawful and that the prorogation was therefore null and void –it had never happened. It was for Parliament to decide what would happen next. Conclusion

Supreme Court: Second day of legal prorogation battle ends". BBC News. 18 September 2019. Archived from the original on 25 September 2019 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. Was the matter justiciable? Relying on the High Court of Justice ruling in the 1611 Case of Proclamations that "the King hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him", the court found that it was. The court also found that the use of the prerogative power of prorogation is a use of the royal prerogative that was open to judicial review, as no party in the case argued that the court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the existence or limits of the power of prorogation. Picture this: it’s just over a year ago, in the more innocent time before the global war of January 2022. Winter has set in, middle school-aged kids running feverishly through the aisle of your local grocery store, shouting to each other while filming their scavenger hunt. “Did you find it? Did you find it?”Argument was advanced by the Government claiming that the Inner House could not declare that any prorogation resulting from the advice was of not effect because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court; however, the Court ruled that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. Rather, it is something which has been imposed upon them from outside, not being something which members of Parliament can speak or vote on.

What could they possibly be looking for, you’re wondering. And what’s gotten them as excited as a five-year-old in a candy store? It’s clear they couldn’t find what they were looking for. The Court considered that it was entirely proper to consider this matter and that doing so would strengthen, not undermine, the separation of powers:“Indeed, by ensuring that the Government does not use the power of prorogation unlawfully with the effect of preventing Parliament from carrying out its proper functions, the court will be giving effect to the separation of powers.”[34] Scope and constitutional principles a b "Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful". BBC News. 11 September 2019. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. Prorogation". Parliament of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 17 June 2019 . Retrieved 12 September 2019.

It was common ground between the parties that the mere fact that the power to prorogue was a prerogative power did not mean that it was not amenable to judicial review. It was also accepted that Her Majesty was obliged by constitutional convention to accept her ministers’ advice to prorogue Parliament. The government argued that the Court could not review this decision as it was inherently a matter of high politics. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that “although the courts cannot decide political questions, the fact that a legal dispute concerns the conduct of politicians, or arises from a matter of political controversy, has never been sufficientreason for the courts to refuse to consider it”[31] and cited paragraph 76 of The Case of Proclamations (1611):“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”. [32] It was ruled that the power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. The limit on the power to prorogue is that a decision to prorogue (or advising the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervising the executive. Bennett, Martyn (29 August 2019). "The historical precedent for resisting the proroguing of parliament". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 25 September 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019.