|
Raven, you are correct. If the SC does its job, then it can not default to self-justification included within the law. The SC analysis of a case must be fully independent of the cited quote from the Constitution.
As I read it, all this HR does is allow a 'point of order' to be called in the case that a piece of law does not conform to it. If anyone here is a parliamentarian, they may be able to shed more light on what actually this entails, but from my limited knowledge it seems that a PoO is up to the speaker to either accept or turn down. I don't know if maybe there is a possibility of a vote to override this discretion?
|