Legal Advisory Unit: Fill & Download for Free

I struggle with the idea of ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ an exercise designed to reveal the preference of a population but hey.the first referendum was supposed to be ‘advisory’ and, at the time most people thought it would result in a remain decision. Consequently, quite a few people voted exit as a protest to the Tories austerity policy.This gives rise to two valid grounds for challenge:It wasn’t supposed to be binding. Interpreting it as a ‘mandate’ is stretching things. [Edit: I learn that referenda in the UK are all legally ‘advisory’ - Parliamentary Sovereignty retains supremacy - that said, the only two national referenda preceding 2016 (one on joining the common market, and one on the first-past-the-post voting system) were acted upon by Parliament. This from Bristol University Law School Advisory Referendums: When to seek the views of the people?]Not everyone realised it would be a live fire exercise. Many would now like to verify that the view expressed was an opinion on the question asked, not how they feel about Cameron, the Tories and austerity.Also:A great many of the more persuasive promises of the Leave campaign have turned out to be lies, misunderstandings or simply unachievable.The WTO rules are not the fallback position they were in 2016 either.Many appear to have changed their minds now they have better information, and can see the deal that is on offer.Polls in the last year or so suggest a growing majority of people now wanting to stay.Those asking for a second referendum feel it is reasonable to ‘check’ whether minds have changed in the light of hard information that directly conflicts with prior promises.Also:We have a much better collective understanding of the Good Friday Agreement and the sheer logistical and administrative nightmare of managing a border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It’s not a conventional border, it’s a theoretical line across the middle of several hundred residential roads. You're talking about dividing communities.Given the tension this will cause, there is a real risk that controlling the Irish border will require a heavy police, and possibly military presence. This will inevitably restart ‘the troubles’.I share the view that nothing Brexit could offer is worth a return to the misery these communities suffered during the troubles. A slim majority is not sufficient mandate to create this risk.Not to mention:Scotland and Northern Ireland overwhelming voted to remain.[edit: addition & correction] and Gibraltar also overwhelmingly voted to remain (see comments for detail).These two factors - the border risks and the remain votes - together mean that there is a real prospect that the United Kingdom may fall apart following Brexit.Nobody considered this in 2016. However zealous one may believe people are about hating EU rules, one cannot impute their indifference to this risk to the British Union. It is a strong argument that the question ‘leave or remain’ should be asked and answered in this light.Finally:although 17.4m people sounds like a big number, the % margin was very small. To all intents and purposes, the referendum result was a dead heat.Worse, the referendum did not involve young people who will be the ones who live with whatever happens next.Demographic analysis shows that the ‘leaver’ cohort are older than the ‘remainers’. This means many will not see the consequences in their lifetimes, and as time passes, an increasing majority will prefer to be inside Europe. Again, it seems the ‘mandate’ to Brexit is weak.So…the people asking for an opportunity to confirm whether Britain still wants to leave, have valid reasons for doing so whether one agrees with their perspective or not.And the people denying them this opportunity appear to have weak arguments based largely in fear the result might not stand scrutiny.These people claim it is ‘undemocratic’ but surely asking ‘are you sure’ or ‘please confirm this is what you want’ is not a failure of democracy, it’s common sense. If the nation still wants to leave knowing everything they now know, the result will be the same, just more authoritative.I forget who said it but it’s true: ‘you can’t hurt democracy with more democracy.[Edit: Thank you to those folk, better informed than I, providing further facts in the comments. I learn something new about this topic most days.]

You could sue the party as a corporate entity if (suppose) you contracted with it to provide concessions at its convention and it failed to pay. You cannot sue it for running crooked politicians for office. I’ve seen a handful of cases naming the party committees as defendants where disaffected candidates sought review of decisions relating to primary elections.But if the question is about suing over policy, a political party (which is not a policy-making organ nor does it have any official status within the Government) is not a proper defendant, and in order to sue the government or one of its agencies or officials, you have to navigate through a maze of separation-of-powers doctrines: sovereign immunity, legislative immunity, executive discretion, administrative deference, prudential standing, abstention, and the case-or-controversy requirement. All of which are designed to keep the courts from micromanaging the affairs of the other branches.Entire treatises about each of these things have been written and they cannot easily be summarised (well, perhaps sovereign immunity can—you can’t sue the government for ordinary injuries unless it so consents. Sovereign immunity is typically waived for ordinary tort and contract claims—people who are injured by non-performance of contracts or negligence on the part of government officials in maintaining property normally can sue for those damages).But the general gist of the rest of those doctrines is that in order to make a challenge to a government policy, you must show that the policy is in violation of the constitution or in the case of an administrative policy the enabling legislation, that you, the plaintiff, have suffered or imminently would suffer if the court did not hear the case a cognizable injury in fact (it does not have to be a large injury), and that it’s actually a good idea for the court to review the policy. Generally these actions are brought against the Government, one of its subdivisions, or the Attorney General.You can sue individual executive office holders as is provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to “deprivation of civil rights” or “disparate treatment”, provided there is no “qualified immunity”, or perhaps, in the event of embezzlement or misuse of public funds, under a qui tam theory. You can sue individual officers under a claim called mandamus if they are supposed to do an action and the governing law is clear that they are required to do the action (not merely have the discretion to do the action) and fail to do the action. That’s how some county clerks and probate judges ended up as defendants in the marriage cases. However, mandamus is inappropriate if there is any discretion afforded to the official. You cannot sue your local police department for failing to come out and arrest some vandals before they broke into your car. These types of causes of action also do not have anything to do with political parties.You basically cannot sue legislators at all; your remedies are limited to challenging unlawful legislation. However, some state courts allow the “Legislature” as an entity to intervene in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of their enactments. In United States v. Windsor, after the Obama Administration decided it was going to agree with the plaintiffs, a “Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group” was retained by the Congressional leadership to argue in favour of the “Defence of Marriage Act of 1996” and added as a party by the Second Circuit in order to preserve the adversary process.The question is too broad to give a good single answer to.

OQ: “How would you behave in prison for the first week of a life sentence? How would you establish yourself on the social hierarchy? “I lived in the Law Library while incarcerated. I became known for my uncanny ability to handle matters of Family Law. I was also known as the guy that would not handle criminal matters/appeals at all. This was established in the first 48 hours.I stayed away from the drugs, gambling tables, and other general prison-crazy activities. I had a schedule that I followed as well as prison would let me. I would spend the mornings in the Law Library unless I was teaching a class in the Education Department. In the Afternoons I was involved in Inmate Council activities (I was a Unit Representative and Chairman of the Legal Advisory Committee). The evenings were for special appointments or watching America’s Got Talent and Big Brother.I became “that guy” everyone would go to for their child support/custody issues. I never charged anyone and I was wildly successful.Do you want to stay on the good side of the biggest prison gang? Reunite the leader with his daughter after 14 years of separation.