This piece originally appeared on The Conversation. Increasingly, threats to the rule of law are as acute as those presented to our species by the unfolding catastrophe of global warming. We are too complacent about both. As someone who teaches in a law school, I believe it’s critical to look closely at two recent events that demonstrate a crisis of the rule of law in the United Kingdom and the United States.Advertisement: The first event is the judgment of the U.K. High Court striking down Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s attempted prorogation of Parliament — on the basis that it was an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to subvert democratic debate and preempt an anticipated vote of non-confidence in Parliament. That decision ought immediately to have forced Johnson to resign; it did not. It did however trigger a series of events that have resulted in a Dec. 12 national election in the U.K. The second is the decision by U.S. Congress to initiate an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.Advertisement: Over the course of the past several weeks, those impeachment proceedings, which are now public, have shone a public spotlight on a series of high-profile State Department and other government officials. Their alarm earlier this year about Trump’s conduct on foreign affairs did what Robert Mueller’s report on Russian collusion could not. It triggered the impeachment process. Trump conviction unlikely The decision of the Democrat-led House of Representatives to initiate an impeachment inquiry will probably lead to the adoption of articles of impeachment. However, conventional wisdom suggests conviction by two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely.Advertisement: A segment of America’s liberal chattering class is nevertheless hopeful enough to begin asking the question of whether Trump can stand for re-election if he is actually impeached and convicted. The answer is unclear. The constitutional crisis around the Trump presidency raises grave questions about public order, civil peace and national cohesion, which are basic to the legitimacy of the state, its rule-making powers and ultimately its monopoly on force.Advertisement: These questions are particularly urgent amid the impact of Trumpian and Brexit-era politics on the rule of law in even the most established democracies. In a televised statement on behalf of a unanimous U.K. Supreme Court bench, the Honourable Lady Brenda Hale, the president of the court, condemned Johnson. She said he had violated the British Constitution by using a request for prorogation of Parliament to avoid continued Brexit debate and to duck a potential vote of non-confidence. Lady Hale’s judgment was a monumental moment for the evolution of the rule of law in the U.K., and it was celebrated as a moment of sanity. Yet it only temporarily averted another constitutional crisis because Johnson did not take the judgment as invitation to resign, and insists that he remains legitimately i
Trump and Johnson are leading the attack against the rule of law
This piece originally appeared on The Conversation. Increasingly, threats to the rule of law are as acute as those presented to our species by the unfolding catastrophe of global warming. We are too complacent about both. As someone who teaches in a law school, I believe it’s critical to look closely at two recent events that demonstrate a crisis of the rule of law in the United Kingdom and the United States.Advertisement: The first event is the judgment of the U.K. High Court striking down Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s attempted prorogation of Parliament — on the basis that it was an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to subvert democratic debate and preempt an anticipated vote of non-confidence in Parliament. That decision ought immediately to have forced Johnson to resign; it did not. It did however trigger a series of events that have resulted in a Dec. 12 national election in the U.K. The second is the decision by U.S. Congress to initiate an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.Advertisement: Over the course of the past several weeks, those impeachment proceedings, which are now public, have shone a public spotlight on a series of high-profile State Department and other government officials. Their alarm earlier this year about Trump’s conduct on foreign affairs did what Robert Mueller’s report on Russian collusion could not. It triggered the impeachment process. Trump conviction unlikely The decision of the Democrat-led House of Representatives to initiate an impeachment inquiry will probably lead to the adoption of articles of impeachment. However, conventional wisdom suggests conviction by two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely.Advertisement: A segment of America’s liberal chattering class is nevertheless hopeful enough to begin asking the question of whether Trump can stand for re-election if he is actually impeached and convicted. The answer is unclear. The constitutional crisis around the Trump presidency raises grave questions about public order, civil peace and national cohesion, which are basic to the legitimacy of the state, its rule-making powers and ultimately its monopoly on force.Advertisement: These questions are particularly urgent amid the impact of Trumpian and Brexit-era politics on the rule of law in even the most established democracies. In a televised statement on behalf of a unanimous U.K. Supreme Court bench, the Honourable Lady Brenda Hale, the president of the court, condemned Johnson. She said he had violated the British Constitution by using a request for prorogation of Parliament to avoid continued Brexit debate and to duck a potential vote of non-confidence. Lady Hale’s judgment was a monumental moment for the evolution of the rule of law in the U.K., and it was celebrated as a moment of sanity. Yet it only temporarily averted another constitutional crisis because Johnson did not take the judgment as invitation to resign, and insists that he remains legitimately i
0 Comments