This case served to trigger a necessary unity, indirectly coerced through a direct judiciary method. That is the weakness of any unwritten constitution, which is nonetheless lurking within any written constitution. (With the word necessary refering to the current or any understanding of the term Rule of Law...) The rule of law has two structural rules which it has no other choice but to fallow. The first rule of law regards to being, existence, the actual physical matter and mass. The second rule of law regards to representing the first rule in and as a template, usually as and within the form of language. The failure regards to any start point A not correlating with the whole process of the rule of law. This means that either only the first rule is applied, or only the second rule is applied, in total or partiality. It works by taking a general state of being which is supported by a more specific linguistic template, or in reverse a more specific state of being which is supposed by a more general state of being. Equally it works by taking a very general linguistic template which is supported by a more specific state of being, or in reverse a very specific linguistic template which is supported by a more general state of being. This will remain the main and most crucial problem in regards to any justice system.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall at a) the Privy Council meeting at Balmoral at which HMQ was briefed on the reasons for prorogation, and b) Johnson's weekly audience with HMQ after the Supreme Court's judgment 🤣
This case served to trigger a necessary unity, indirectly coerced through a direct judiciary method.
That is the weakness of any unwritten constitution, which is nonetheless lurking within any written constitution.
(With the word necessary refering to the current or any understanding of the term Rule of Law...)
The rule of law has two structural rules which it has no other choice but to fallow. The first rule of law regards to being, existence, the actual physical matter and mass. The second rule of law regards to representing the first rule in and as a template, usually as and within the form of language. The failure regards to any start point A not correlating with the whole process of the rule of law. This means that either only the first rule is applied, or only the second rule is applied, in total or partiality.
It works by taking a general state of being which is supported by a more specific linguistic template, or in reverse a more specific state of being which is supposed by a more general state of being. Equally it works by taking a very general linguistic template which is supported by a more specific state of being, or in reverse a very specific linguistic template which is supported by a more general state of being.
This will remain the main and most crucial problem in regards to any justice system.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall at a) the Privy Council meeting at Balmoral at which HMQ was briefed on the reasons for prorogation, and b) Johnson's weekly audience with HMQ after the Supreme Court's judgment 🤣
Great vid pls do one on islamic arts simota case
what's that? when was it heard?
Wow Cambridge can’t afford a proper banner and use tape on wonky paper?
Case Of The Century? #HonorHerWish
It's amazing how quickly the law can move when the entire establishment (political and legal) disagrees with a democratic vote.
Listen to it again. That was not the point at issue.
Quite good video, awesome! Would you like to be UA-cam friends? :]
My uncle!