It's a long-term project, so forgive me if I take my time to digest it before posting more.
I shared some of my initial reactions on the Court Report this week:
And my law buddy, Andrew Geddis, has some typically wise analysis and a set of predications over at Pundit:
But, one thought to set the rolling maul of constitutional navel-gazing off.
Bill English proclaimed that any significant constitutional changes would require overwhelming support:
"Significant change will not be undertaken lightly and will require either broad cross-party agreement or the majority support of voters at a referendum,"
But, based on this principle, does that mean the government won't be amending the jury trial threshold in our Bill of Rights unless they can garner broad cross-party support for the change?