A Quote by Prashant Bhushan

It is well settled in our Constitutional scheme that all Parliamentary Acts and mandates bind the executive. Any executive act, which violates any express or implied mandate of the Parliament, is unconstitutional and void.
There could be constitutional problems with executive detention if it is seen to be arbitrary. I didn't actually say that the NSW Government's proposed anti-terrorism bill was necessarily unconstitutional - that was sloppy journalism - I said that executive detention may raise constitutional problems if it is seen to be arbitrary as being an invasion of the judicial function.
Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Power rests in Parliament, in the House of Commons, and the government - the executive - has to seek the consent of MPs for its legislation.
In the rare event that the Supreme Court refuses to play along [...] there is always a perfectly legal, extra-constitutional, quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, quasi-judicial, "independent" regulatory commission or executive agency to kill off or override constitutional protections.
We didn't pass any constitutional amendments that affected the executive branch while I was governor.
President Obama is in violation of Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution by refusing to enforce the employer mandate provisions of Obamacare. The executive branch, which has no constitutional authority to write or rewrite law at whim, has usurped the exclusive legislative power of Congress.
Executive power in any nation arguably has more in common with executive power in another country than with the citizens it should serve.
My feeling about executive bonuses is that any candidate for a chief executive job who even raises the issue of bonuses should be dismissed out of hand.
When it imposes expensive regulatory mandates on the private sector, Congress often acts on the basis of interest-group pressures, anecdotes, and the emotions of the moment. The executive branch is hardly perfect, but it is far less likely to do that.
There's a whole process of how the U.S. enters into executive agreements, which involves a legal component, a legal analysis of the agreement, as well as a review by executive branch agencies and otherwise.
When you're allowing the Executive Branch to deprive somebody of a constitutional liberty without any process, that is something that affects all Americans because that's a precedent that can be used.
There is one way, only one way to solve it, and that is through legislation. It cannot be through an unconstitutional executive order that violates the Constitution. That is, it doesn't matter here what you think about immigration: here you cannot violate the nation's Constitution, period.
I cannot... perceive any ground for hoping that any practical good would, while the funding system exists in its present extent, result from the adoption of any of those projects, which have professed to have in view what is called Parliamentary Reform... when the funding system, from whatever cause, shall cease to operate upon civil and political liberty, there will be no need of projects for parliamentary reform. The parliament will, as far as shall be necessary, then reform itself.
The President seems to extend executive privilege way out past the atmosphere. What he says is executive privilege is nothing but executive poppycock.
The function of parliament is to hold the executive to account. We should never overlook the primacy of parliament.
As mayor in an executive position, I have to dress more like an executive, which has been delightful.
We already have immigration law, and it is being violated. Obama's executive amnesty is not the settled law. [Barak ] Obama's executive amnesty is outside the law, and that's why it's been stayed.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!