Talk:Parliament Act 1911

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Parliament Act 1911 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 2, 2011 Good article nominee Listed


Much work has clearly gone into this article, but I wonder whether it's redundant to Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Does anyone else have an opinion on merging the two? Alkari (?), 3 December 2011, 02:35 UTC

Some reorganisation is probably desirable, but I think that there is probably enough material to justify an article for both of these Acts. James500 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I believed that Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 was insufficent so I created this article (and a rather poorer Parliament Act 1949. From my perspective, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 did fine as a summary but details of the discussion process and context aren't particularly relevant whereas they are very important here. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Premature formality[edit]

This Act must be construed as one with the Parliament Act 1949. The two Acts may be cited together as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

I'm familiar with the formal "must". Every RFC begins by defining "must" and "shall". Since I don't think the lead serves best to help civics students cram for their midterms, I suggest instead something along the following lines:

As legally ordained by (British?) statutory interpretation, British judiciary must construe this Act as one with the Parliament Act 1949.

As badly worded as that probably is, at least it addresses who (precisely) is governed by what (precisely), without invoking rolling thunder from on high in summoning up a baritone passive voice. — MaxEnt 21:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)