Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;R*L, post: 3156499, member: 96878&quot;]Thanks lrbguy, that make the decision itself a bit clearer, although as someone raised in a Westminster type system (New Zealand) (where I do a reasonable amount of judicial review work) the US system of balance of powers as described here seems decidedly odd! Like your system, the balance of powers is maintained here in part by the judiciary providing a check on the executive but the heart of that is ensuring (via it&#039;s powers of judicial review) that the executive only acts within the powers granted to it by the legislature and no further. To that end, our judiciary would not defer to the Crown on issues of statutory interpretation in respect of definitions or anything else, it&#039;s the other way around. E.g. our executive branch could agree whatever it wants with a foreign state about say, what coins to impose import restrictions on, and our judiciary would not interfere with that agreement. But when it comes to implementing that agreement, our executive branch is still constrained by the scope of the powers granted to it by the relevant empowering legislation. It could not increase that scope by promulgating definitions in subordinate legislation or policy that are in effect wider than those in the primary Act - to do so would be crossing into the territory of the legislature. If it did, on review the courts certainly would not allow the Crown to act based on definitions beyond the scope of the definitions in the primary Act - it would essentially be acting <i>ultra vires</i>. But that seems to be what has happened here. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Again, making it clear that I am speaking from a non-US perspective, I didn&#039;t read the Guild&#039;s interpretation as absurd - it seems to be in line with what the Act says. Just because that might create practical difficulties for the enforcement agency would not (in the system where I come from anyway) justify the executive avoiding that problem by interpreting its powers in a manner inconsistent with it&#039;s empowering legislation. The Act says what it says, if the executive doesn&#039;t like that (and I agree that the difficulties that you have outlined are perfectly valid reasons for why it might not) the correct approach would be for the executive to seek legislative reform.</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyway, analyzing an American decision from the perspective of NZ law is obviously a fruitless exercise! And my apologies for inflicting my ignorance of US constitutional law on the forum - it&#039;s interesting for me to see law and coins collide so I found this decision fascinating but was struggling to see how it could be correct. I take it from the above that this is essentially as it is written subject to some underlying constitutional assumptions that aren&#039;t shared between our respective jurisdictions.</p><p><br /></p><p>It might also help if I read <i>Ancient Coin I - </i>is anyone able to post a link? </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I would love to see counsel&#039;s take on this.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in