{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018121911037891267, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016474464579901153, 'mean_word_length': 5.831460674157303, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Authority of Parliament: A Reply to Professor Joseph

PROFESSOR JOSEPH is concerned to understand the true nature of the relationship between courts and legislature in Westminster constitutional systems. In a recent article, he argues that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is a hindrance to that task. Specifically, he claims that the language of sovereignty “enslaves constitutional debate”, obscuring clear analysis of constitutional practice by falsely providing that either courts or Parliament must be supreme.1 Determining the true relationship between courts and Parliament, he contends: