Margo (or should I ask Tony Fitzgerald QC?):

Isn't the real problem that political force is now exerted baldly, rather than through some sort of court? For close to 700 years the political force of first the English monarchs, and then later, Parliament, was exerted through some sort of court. First, the monarch constituted a court; the English king was thought to be able to make judgments as a common law judge until the Case of Prohibitions in 1607. Then, Parliament was regarded as a court; legislation was called the 'judgment' of Parliament until the seventeenth century, parliamentary privilege is really the privilege of a superior court (see Erskine May, 'Parliamentary Practice' 22nd ed., p.65), and until the nineteenth century the lay peers adjudicated as the UK's highest court as an ordinary part of their parliamentary duties, because, again, Parliament was a court.

Now it is taken for granted that the legislature is NOT a court; no-one calls legislation the 'judgment' of the legislature, parliamentary privilege looks highly dodgy rather than an inherent curial right, and legislators do NOT act as the highest court (thank goodness!). Instead, despite our written constitutions, political force (now democratic rather than monarchical as previously), is exerted through the 'court of public opinion', but not necessarily through any 'court' in the strict, juridical sense as previously.

Thus, political force can no longer be presumed to be necessarily moderated, whenever exerted. It bumps up against constitutional limits if it goes too far, but otherwise, it is routinely exerted outside any moderating, regulating, court. This seems to be why political power is out of control.

NHJ! (JR): For political force, I presume you mean 'Executive' force - but doesn't the combined sovereignty of Parliament/the Separation of Powers (regardless of how badly enforced at any given time) in theory represent a (triangulated) approximation of the 'court' system of power dissipation? And what about International Law/HR - isn't/wasn't this now the modern equivalent of the old Kingly Court's girdle of modesty discretely limiting the baldness of monarchical power, by restraining this new-fangled, upstart bully-boy that is nation state, public opinion mandated (AKA 'democratic') power?

Or...am I rambling blindly about legal fripperies of which I know naught...? Other lawyers out there? Heeeelp...