Sophie Miléna Sotello, FMA’s Post

Destroying valuable archives is not a good idea. Digitized files are never 100 percent perfect (file errors, missing pages). In addition, who is going to determine the definition of 'famous person' to qualify for the original document's preservation? Both UK residents and international interested parties can provide comment on this important issue and it is highly recommended. #familyhistory #genealogy #archives

This year's Gresham College Gray's Inn Reading was given by Lord Falconer. His speech is a tour de force of powerful insights covering, inter alia, the fading effect of losing the support of your Party in the Commons and gave as examples: Chamberlain after the Norway Debate in 1940 contrasting with Theresa May following repeated defeats of her Brexit Bill in 2019. He also addressed the question of the capacity of the Commons to constitute itself a Court, as it purports to do under the Rwanda Act, how that breaches the separation of powers (24 mins, link to recording below). One observation resonated with me. At 31mins 41 seconds of the recording Lord Falconer makes the point that Parliament is increasingly abdicating responsibility for making coherent law by passing what is called "skeleton legislation". One example which required Judicial intervention was the failure of Parliament to determine the law relating to so-called hybrid claims in the Official Injury Claim - an issue only finally solved by the UKSupremeCourt. Lord Falconer explains in his speech that skeleton laws often provide for vital detail to be provided not by Parliamentarians but by Civil Servants in delegated legislation i.e. Statutory Instruments (SIs). As Lord Falconer says in his speech, Parliamentary scrutiny of SIs is very limited to a "yes" or "no". Another instance holding up the progress of the civil justice reforms is the question of the purpose of the Online Procedure Rule Committee(OPRC). The OPRC has jurisdiction identical to the other 3 rule making bodies. But how those bodies and the OPRC co-exist is left, under section 21(3) & (4) of the Judicial Review and Courts Act, 2022 (the 2022 Act) to regulation made by SI. Despite the OPRC being fully recruited and announced over a year ago there is as yet no sign of the SI, that is the key to progress, being promulgated. In the Bill Committee for the 2022 Act Richard Leiper, KC gave evidence to that Committee which highlighted the issue of "treading on the toes" (as Mr Leiper put it) of the other 3 committees (see Hansard for 02.11.21 at col. 37, link below). I made like observations through my column in the Solicitors Journal and on this channel. Yet Parliament did nothing to address this egregious lacuna. Why is that? Is Parliament letting us down? Is Parliament running from legislating on hard issues? You decide. All I know is that the longer the question of a SI for the OPRC goes on the longer the wait before we can truly introduce effective IT into the civil justice system. Fortunately the Civil, Family and Tribunal Procedure Rule Committees are not waiting for the OPRC to sort itself out. A phased integration of ADR has been under way for the past 2 years and the pace of integration is accelerating. DisputesEfiling.com Limited ADR ODR International Limited Rahim Shamji DDRS Neil Sharpley Zakia K. Amanda Finlay #adr #a2j

In the constituent assembly debates it was said that the judiciary ought not to become the strongest organ of government or an overarching power.. in my view this is true, for instance if every process is left to the judiciary there will not only be several lacunae in daily life but life will also be more of living under an edict than living normally. The judiciary cannot envisage every facet of life or reality in the course of its duties. It can only do justice to the parties before it. It is true that it can take care of public interest but it cannot engulf everything which is required to function properly. If one looks at the genesis of democracy, which I believe in part originated from Montesquieus separation of powers, I am sure one will find the reasons for our nation to adopt the separation of powers doctrine. It is essential that this division of powers exists, and it is true that each organ of government has equal importance, though in todays times the judiciary has acquired immense potency.

Though just past Constitution Day (9/17), this project my granddaughter completed in her 2nd grade class has me reflecting on the simple but profound wisdom of young minds. She was asked to write the Preamble in her own words, reminding us of what truly matters: making "good" laws, ensuring peace, and promoting freedom and health for all. We are a country OF laws, not one ruled BY law. Let us all work to make a good country—together, remembering the simple tenets of the Preamble... And as a fun exercise, can you pass the 2nd-grade test on the Constitution? 1) What date was it created? 2) Name the first signer of the Constitution? 3) How many states approved the Constitution? 4) How many amendments are there? 5) What are the first ten amendments called? 6) What does Article I create? 7) What does Article II create? 8) What does Article III create? 9) How many total articles are in the Constitution? 10) What type of government structure did the states belong to before the Constitution? BONUS: Where does the Government (all governments for that matter) derive its power? (I added this one :) Let's challenge ourselves to know the foundation of our republic and the freedoms we hold dear. If you need a good, nonpartisan,source, check out National Constitution Center. #ConstitutionDay #WeThePeople #CivicResponsibility #CountryOfLaws #KnowYourConstitution

The Supreme Court of Canada has published its 2023 Year in Review, which reflects on its work and activities over the past year. The report also provides information about the Court’s decisions and statistics.   “The Supreme Court of Canada’s Year in Review is one of the many ways we are working to promote access to justice and foster public trust through open courts,” said the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada.   This year’s edition highlights the Court’s outreach efforts and engagement in the international judicial community. At a time when democracy is under threat in many parts of the world, these initiatives are essential to strengthening the rule of law and promoting openness, access to justice and judicial independence.   Explore the report at: https://lnkd.in/eyrVN9yn

https://lnkd.in/gYEc2v8y A well-known concept derived from the text and structure of the Constitution is the doctrine of what is commonly called separation of powers. The Framers’ experience with the British monarchy informed their belief that concentrating distinct governmental powers in a single entity would subject the nation’s people to arbitrary and oppressive government action.1 Thus, in order to preserve individual liberty, the Framers sought to ensure that a separate and independent branch of the Federal Government would exercise each of government’s three basic functions: legislative, executive, and judicial.2 While the text of the Constitution does not expressly refer to the doctrine of separation of powers, the Nation’s Founding document divides governmental power among three branches by vesting the Legislative Power of the Federal Government in Congress;3 the Executive Power in the President;4 and the Judicial Power in the Supreme Court and any lower courts created by Congress.

NEW BRIEF I The Constitutional Amendment Procedure: Analysis of the Process and the Role and Participation of the Civil Society This joint brief with the Somali Dialogue Platform / Rift Valley Institute: 1⃣Analyses the Adoption Procedure for the Constitutional Amendment, & 2⃣Explores ways that civil society can contribute to and influence the constitutional review process Read the full brief here

Separation of powers is in the US constitution. https://lnkd.in/gYEc2v8y A well-known concept derived from the text and structure of the Constitution is the doctrine of what is commonly called separation of powers. The Framers’ experience with the British monarchy informed their belief that concentrating distinct governmental powers in a single entity would subject the nation’s people to arbitrary and oppressive government action.1 Thus, in order to preserve individual liberty, the Framers sought to ensure that a separate and independent branch of the Federal Government would exercise each of government’s three basic functions: legislative, executive, and judicial.2 While the text of the Constitution does not expressly refer to the doctrine of separation of powers, the Nation’s Founding document divides governmental power among three branches by vesting the Legislative Power of the Federal Government in Congress;3 the Executive Power in the President;4 and the Judicial Power in the Supreme Court and any lower courts created by Congress.

Understand your pessimism Gareth Hawkins, politicians have done themselves no favours in thr last decade. Let’s not generalise though. Here’s some food for thought: To determine which post-war UK political party delivered the most consistent economic growth, we analyzed GDP growth, employment, interest rates, and inflation during key periods. ### Conservative Party: 1. **1951-1964 (Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home)**: Steady GDP growth, high employment, low interest rates, moderate inflation. 2. **1970-1974 (Heath)**: Fluctuating GDP due to oil crisis and industrial strife, high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation. 3. **1979-1997 (Thatcher, Major)**: Strong mid-80s growth but recessions in early 80s/90s, high initial unemployment, high initial interest rates, inflation controlled later. 4. **2010-2019 (Cameron, May, Johnson)**: Moderate GDP growth post-2008 crisis, significant employment improvement, historically low interest rates, generally low inflation. ### Labour Party: 1. **1945-1951 (Attlee)**: Strong post-war reconstruction, high employment, low interest rates, moderate inflation. 2. **1964-1970 (Wilson)**: Moderate GDP growth, high employment initially, varied interest rates, rising inflation. 3. **1974-1979 (Wilson, Callaghan)**: Weak GDP growth, high unemployment, high interest rates, very high inflation. 4. **1997-2010 (Blair, Brown)**: Consistently strong GDP growth until 2008, high employment, stable/low interest rates, low/stable inflation. ### Conclusion: The **Labour government from 1997 to 2010** delivered the most consistent economic growth. This period featured strong and steady GDP growth, high employment, stable interest rates, and low inflation until the global financial crisis in 2008. While the Conservative period from 1979 to 1997 saw significant reforms and growth, it was marked by higher volatility. The 1997-2010 Labour period stands out for its sustained economic stability and performance.