Reference no: EM131633263

Need someone who is an expert in Political Science to help me do this paper. Please use the article below and powerpoint to do the paper. The paper must contain at least 600 words.

We concluded our discussion of the common law, and in particular its application in Great Britain. We also listened to this news story from NPR  about the impact of Brexit on British law -- specifically the 1998 Human Rights Act.

In short, Britain's withdrawal from the EU compromises the applicability of certain civil laws and protections afforded by the EU; by voting in favor of Brexit, a majority of British citizens supported this (whether they realized it or not is a separate issue).

Prime Minister Teresa May, therefore, is merely acting within the scope of her duties in facilitating the British exit from the EU -- precisely as the voters expected her to do.

However, a private British citizen disagrees with the constitutionality of this process, and challenged it in court. The British Supreme Court issued a ruling, referenced in the NPR story, that alters (but does not materially change) the constitutional process of withdrawal. It was, in short, a classic balance-of-powers scenario between different branches of government.

Given what we have studied about the common law tradition, and the rights afforded to British citizens in the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Human Rights Act of 1998, do you think the plaintiff in the case, Gina Miller,

(a) should have been allowed to file suit against the prime minister and

(b) was the court's ruling consistent with British legal tradition (both in procedure and substance, i.e., should it even have taken the case and, in doing so, did it rule appropriately)?

Again, bear in mind that PM May was only carrying out the will of the people as expressed in the Brexit referendum.