Prime Hydration Drink

Product Information

Date: 24th September 2019 Neutral Citation: [2019] UKSC 41 Court: Supreme Court Link: Link to Judgment McCord (Raymond), JR83 and Jamie Waring's Applications v The Prime Minister & Ors". British and Irish Legal Information Institute . Retrieved 11 August 2021.

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. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that 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. Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951), a High Court of Australia case which held that a law forcefully dissolving the Communist Party of Australia violated the Constitution of Australia's provisions on the separation of powers. 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] Clark, Alasdair (4 September 2019). "Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament is lawful, Scottish court rules". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 May 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019.Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (1920), which held that the royal prerogative could not be used to circumvent statutory law.

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: Honeycomb-Foster, Matt (25 September 2019). "Attorney General slaps down Jacob Rees-Mogg over claim Supreme Court launched 'constitutional coup' ". PoliticsHome. Archived from the original on 8 December 2019 . Retrieved 27 September 2019.

Ekins, Richard (2019). Protecting the Constitution: How and why Parliament should limit judicial power (PDF). Policy Exchange. ISBN 978-1-913459-06-2. Nelson, Sara C (10 September 2019). "Parliament Prorogued: Scuffles And Bursts of Song As MPs Protest Shutdown". HuffPost UK. The speakers of both the House of Lords and House of Commons stated the ruling had quashed royal assent of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019—which had royal assent signified during the prorogation ceremony—and therefore royal assent had to be re-signified. [38] Yuan Yi Zhu, a Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Pembroke College, Oxford, argued that this was a misunderstanding by parliamentary authorities due to ambiguity in the judgment, ironically implicating the sovereignty of Parliament contrary to Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the enrolled bill rule; Zhu suggested a short bill should be passed to "reassert Parliamentary sovereignty and minimise the risk of its erosion" by the judiciary. [39] Fixed-term Parliaments Act [ edit ] Coates, Sam (16 July 2019). "Boris Johnson team considering plan to suspend parliament in run up to Brexit". Sky News. Archived from the original on 2 November 2019 . Retrieved 24 September 2019.

Elliott, Mark (24 September 2019). "The Supreme Court's judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2): A new approach to constitutional adjudication?". Public Law for Everyone. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019 . Retrieved 29 September 2019. Judge rejects temporary ban on Parliament shutdown ahead of full hearing". BBC News. 30 August 2019. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019 . Retrieved 24 September 2019.

Cite This Work

Further speculation that Parliament could be prorogued led opposition MPs to successfully amend the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill to make prorogation during late October functionally impossible by requiring the government to report to Parliament its efforts to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly, which Parliament would then sit—even during prorogation—to debate. [9] In late July, the newly appointed Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said the government viewed prorogation for political purposes as an "archaic mechanism" which would not be used. [10] Despite this, Johnson still planned to have Parliament prorogued, and sought legal advice in mid-August from his Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, to that effect. [11] This case concerns the conglomeration of two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland.

Sweeney, Christopher (12 November 1975). "Australia in turmoil as Whitlam is fired". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 1 May 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. Supreme Court: Ex-PM's lawyer argues against prorogation". BBC News. 19 September 2019. Archived from the original on 23 January 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. Walker, Peter; Elgot, Jessica (18 July 2019). "MPs pass amendment seeking to thwart no-deal Brexit prorogation". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 July 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019. Helm, Toby; Stewart, Heather (24 August 2019). "Boris Johnson seeks legal advice on five-week parliament closure ahead of Brexit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 August 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019.

Would you like to
 know more?

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?” 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 The three appeal judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session noted that O'Neill made "interesting and stirring" remarks about a Scottish tradition of holding the Crown to account; the judges stated O'Neill had "not actually identified any material differences between the applicable Scots law and the corresponding English law" and his argument was "pushing at an open door". [27] Hearing [ edit ] Press and anti-prorogation protesters assemble outside the Supreme Court on 17 September 2019 Ali, Junade (24 September 2019). "The Fixed Term Parliament Act: A Recipe for Constitutional Crisis and Prorogation?". Oxford University Political Blog. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019 . Retrieved 23 December 2019.