Ben's Chili Bowl

On a recent visit to Washington DC I was taken to Ben's Chili Bowl. I want to go back (I loved the chili dog)! Even President Obama visits! (Other customers have included Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, Martin Luther King and Bill Cosby).




More information can be found at the Ben's Chili Bowl Website

Richard Baker

Richard Baker was the Senate Historian, the first ever. He retired this August. I enjoyed - and continue to dip into his brilliant book "200 Notable Days: Senate Stories 1787 to 2002". For many years he opened up the weekly luncheon of the Senate Democratic caucus with a brief anedote from the history of the Senate. These are now available on the Senate website.

C-SPAN recently filmed a conversation with Mr Baker

How many members?

The House of Commons changes its size every few years. Currently there are 646 seats, which will rise to 650 at the coming General Election. David Cameron has proposed reducing the size to 585. The twentieth century began with 670 MPs , rising to a high of 707 in 1918, with 615 from 1922 to 1945. 1945 saw 640 elected; from 1950 to 1955 there were 625. There were 630 between 1955 and 1974; 635 until 1983; 650 between 1983 and 1992. 651 were elected in 1992 - and after another major change in boundaries, 659 from 1977 t0 2005.

The number of Peers eligible to sit in the House of Lords changes frequently. There are no set limits - and the numbers rise with new appointments, and fall upon the death of any member. [Only Bishops 'retire' from the House of Lords - for others death is the only release].

The Senate's size is governed by Art 1 Section 3 Clause 1 "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State".

The House of Representatives is fixed by statute at 435 (Public Law 62-5 of 1911) members. This number could be changed by statute. CQ Politics reported this week that a retired health care consultant in Southern California, Scott Scharpen, has filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Mississippi contending that the law limiting House membership to 435 is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of one person, one vote.

Britbowl Report

A report on the game can be found at Coventry Evening Telegraph

Enforcing Rights

There are many criticisms of Britain's membership of the European Union (many unwarranted - some close to hysterical! for an expose of some of the myths press here - for some of the benefits press here).

Normally an International Treaty creates rights for individuals which are unenforceable. In the UK, Parliament would have to pass legislation to turn the "right" into reality. If it fails to do that the 'right' is merely an illusion - only other signatories (that is the other governments who have signed the Treaty) can bring legal action to enforce the right.

Early in the history of the EU (or the European Economic Community) the ECJ recognised a concept known as "Direct Effect". Rights arising from EU law may be enforceable IN THE NATIONAL COURTS if they meet certain criteria.

The first criteria, which apply whether the right arose in a Treaty Article; a Regulation or a Directive has become known, after the case which first established them, as the 'Van Gend Criteria'. Essentially the right must be "Clear, Precise and Unconditional" - not too difficult to show if a particular claimed right meets these requirements.

Directives (and ONLY directives) have two additional requirements, which must be met if the right can be relied upon in the national court

• the date set for the implementation of the directive must have passed (again easy to establish)
• the body being claimed against (the individual or corporate body whose actions have affected the claimant) is "an emanation of the state". In the Foster v British Gas case a claimant would have to show that the body is one "whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals"

If a body fails to meet the criteria there may be two further avenues to pursue

1. Indirect Effect - in the action against the body whose actions have affected the claimant (in the National Court, as above) - the Court may attempt to read the national law to give effect to the right. This interpretation approach can only go so far - it obviously doesn't apply if there is no national law to interpret - or if it would require doing "violence to the language" actually in the national legislation
   
2. State Liability Action. Instead of bringing an action against the body who has directly affected the claimant - an action is brought - again in the national court, against the State. Sometimes this is referred to as the Francovich principle. It is necessary to show

• the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals;
• the breach must be sufficiently serious;
• and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured parties