Why do Acts of the UK Parliament still start with a lengthy bombastic sentence? Source: Rebecca Gowers. Plain Words (2014 ed). p. 76 Top. Can't the hackneyed sentence (in bold, below) be shortened? Why not something less pompous? The first affects only the official. It is tempting to cling too long to outworn words and phrases. The British Constitution, as everyone knows, has been shaped by retaining old forms and putting them to new uses. Among the old forms that we are reluctant to abandon are those found in State documents. Every Bill begins with the words: 'Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...'. It ends its career as a Bill and becomes an Act when the Clerk of the Parliaments is authorised by the Queen to declare 'La Reine le veult'. That is all very well, because no one ever reads these traditional phrases; they are no longer intended to convey thought from one brain to another. And none of us would much like the official to say, 'That's OK by Her Majesty'. But officials, living in this atmosphere, and properly proud of the ancient traditions of their service, sometimes allow their own style of writing to be affected by it—adverting and acquainting and causing to be informed of same. There may even be produced in the minds of some officials the feeling that a common word lacks the dignity that they are bound to maintain.
From Wikipedia: An enacting clause, or enacting formula, is a short phrase that introduces the main provisions of a law enacted by a legislature. It usually declares the source from which the law claims to derive its authority. In many countries, an enacting formula is not considered necessary and is simply omitted. The simplest enacting clauses merely cite the legislature by which the law has been adopted; for example the enacting clause used in Australia since 1990 is &quot;The Parliament of Australia enacts&quot;. Alternatively an enacting clause may invoke the ultimate sovereign. For example, California, based on the principle of popular sovereignty, has the following enacting clause: &quot;The People of the State of California do enact as follows.&quot; For example, Acts of the US Congress begin with words not unlike those of Acts of Parliament: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled UK statutory instruments go further, stating not only who made the order, but also which legislation provided the power to make this order. To take a recent example at random: The Secretary of State for Education makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 129(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 From these, one might surmise that the purpose of these sentences is to convince the reader that the person or body issuing the legislation has the power to do so. For most statutory instruments, the power to make them comes from Acts of Parliament, and so the specific section(s) of the those Acts are stated. For Acts of Parliament themselves, it is taken as read that the Queen, Lords and Commons acting together (or more formally, the Queen-in-Parliament) have the power to legislate, so it is sufficient to merely state that is they who have done so - and similarly for the US Congress and other legislatures. In response to edits in the question: Can't the hackneyed sentence ... be shortened? Yes it could, as evidenced by the fact that not all countries use an enacting clause at all, and some of those that do have shorter, simpler ones. Why not something less pompous? Why should they? One shouldn't underestimate the role of tradition in the UK constitution - indeed it's held together in part by unwritten conventions whose long use has solidified them into something like law. As mentioned in the question, bills don't become acts until they've been assented to by a hereditary monarch, which is indicated by a clerk uttering a statement in Norman French. Compared to that, what's wrong with acts starting with a grandiose statement? Incidentally, if you thank that's pompous, then you'll enjoy the enacting clause which appears at the top of UK Finance Acts: Most Gracious Sovereign WE, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards raising the necessary supplies to defray Your Majesty’s public expenses, and making an addition to the public revenue, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and to grant unto Your Majesty the several duties hereinafter mentioned; and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Finally, context is everything. I would strongly recommend watching a recording of the State Opening of Parliament. In addition to all the pomp and circumstance, the main event where is the Queen - wearing a priceless bejewelled crown, sitting on a golden throne under a golden canopy, watched by Peers of the Realm dressed in ermine robes - reads a speech prepared by the government, in the chamber of the House of Lords, with its golden ceiling, intricate carvings, statues and stained-glass windows. Compared to that, a few extra words at the start of an Act seems kind of modest, don't you think?
The comments have basically covered this, but: It's a slightly weird parallel structure ("who shall not be at least 25, and been a citizen for 7 years, and who shall not be a resident"). The Constitution is not written in fluid 21st-century English. But the obviously correct way to parse the sentence is that no one can be a representative who isn't a 25-year-old or older who's been a citizen for at least 7 years; furthermore, no one can be a representative who wasn't a resident of the state they represent when they were elected. With some parts of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment), the drafting results in actual disputes about the intended meaning. With other parts (like here), only one reading makes any sense. It's the same with the requirements to be President. The Constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President," which could be read as "you're not eligible unless, when the Constitution was adopted, you were either a citizen of the US or a natural-born citizen." But that's a silly reading, so "at the time of the Adoption" is read as only applying to "a Citizen of the United States:" natural-born citizens are eligible period, and people who were born before the US was a thing but were citizens by the time the Constitution was adopted were grandfathered in.
The Law Commission already does this, including: repealing legislation that no longer serves any practical purpose creating consolidation bills, which merge multiple acts (or parts of act) into a single one. Because Law Commission bills do not create or change the law, they typically have an expedited passage through Parliament.
In both common law countries and in civil law countries, words are given their plain meaning for legal purposes, unless there is an express definition to the contrary is provided. And, in Europe, the plain meaning is unambiguous and is what the plain language that you quote says. (The meaning would be ambiguous in the Korean language, or regarding a horse, in contrast.) While there are times when there are age groupings that aren't the plain meaning (e.g. eligibility for youth sports league divisions, school enrollment), it isn't usually stated so plainly. For example, a sports team might have a U10 division which has a defined meaning, but is unlikely to say "for children under age 10" when it really means "for children under age 10 as of the first day of the season".
It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. That's not correct. You've inadvertently missed the other element of the offence: that it's an "unwarranted demand". A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 For example, I may have reasonable grounds under the Consumer Rights Act to demand a refund for a faulty good. It might be sensible to moderate one's language, e.g. "If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs." vs. "If I do not receive the money from you within 30 days of the date of this letter I'll take you to the f***ing cleaners, sunshine." But the language doesn't make the demand unwarranted.
First, if by "they say" you literally mean they use spoken words, and not a printed advertisement, or an advertisement on the internet that you can print out, then you may have a hard time proving what they said. If you can prove what they said that would be very helpful, a seller may be in trouble if their contract is not the same as what they promised. If things go to court, then a judge will first figure out what the contract is (let's say both sides have a copy of the contract - but the words are different, then a jury decides). That's not what we have here. Then the judge decides what the words in the contract mean. If the words are ambiguous, then the judge interprets the words in favour of the person who didn't write the contract.
In broad terms, in a three pillar democracy, the job of the legislature is to make the law, the job of the executive is to enforce the law and the job of the courts is to interpret the law. The courts may find that a piece of legislation is invalid, either in whole or in part for any number of reasons. The legislature can respond by: Repealing the legislation Changing the legislation to remove the invalidity Doing nothing. Your first question is why would they go for option 3? I can, off the cuff, think of several reasons: Time pressures, a legislature can only deal with so many pieces of legislation per year - it may not be a worthwhile investment of time to "tidy up" the statute books. Possibility of appeal, the precedent may be open to appeal or having an alternative ruling in a higher court. Precedent, unless and until the decision reaches the Supreme Court or equivalent then the decision is only binding on lower courts. Possibility of change to superordinate legislation, in the particular circumstance you cite, the local authority may leave the law on the books in the hope or expectation that the state law may be repealed or overturned - the local law would then be valid. For your second question, the judge is supposed to know. That said, judges make mistakes so a wise plaintiff/defendant will draw the judge's attention to the current state of the law. It would certainly look bad for them on appeal if it emerged that they did know and allowed the judge to make a mistake. Firstly, they are officers of the court and secondly, justice is blind but justices may remember you made them look like a fool! For your third question ... maybe. However, such a claim would be limited to what you actually lost through your lawyer's malpractice. It can't be the case because you couldn't win it anyway - the law was against you! You may be able to argue that the lawyer should be responsible for some of the costs or losses that arose from you failing to settle earlier. Good luck with that.
(I am not your lawyer. I am not here to help you. If you are reading this because someone has died, please stop and instead read the Scottish Courts and Tribunals guide to dealing with a deceased's estate in Scotland, or contact a solicitor.) Yes, in general. Section 1 of the Wills Act 1963, which is in force in Scotland, specifies that "[a] will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conformed to the internal law in force in the territory where it was executed." Furthermore, Section 4 states that "[t]he construction of a will shall not be altered by reason of any change in the testator’s domicile after the execution of the will." "Construction" here refers to interpreting the language and effect of the will. So if the will was validly executed in England, it should also be in force in Scotland, and a Scottish court will give it the same meaning it would have had under English law. Furthermore, the same rule of validity seems to apply in both England and Scotland: Wills Act 1837 section 9. There may be other Scottish laws affecting the disposition of the estate that differ from English law. Relevant statutes include Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, section 21A, which seems consistent with Wills Act 1963. (I am trained in U.S. rather than English or Scottish law; I'm trusting the accuracy of the UK's excellent online legislation archive for the proposition that the statutes cited are in force in Scotland. I haven't checked the case law for contrary interpretations.)