True, they could and at various times this kind of action has been done by various state governments in the past. But the political backlash has been very large. One is able to challenge the validity of such legislation and the government of the day has to show cause as to why this is valid before the courts.
The problem with the currently enacted terror legislation (approved by both sides) is that only an administrative change in a definition is required. This does not (as far as I can ascertain) require this to even go back to parliament for approval.
The point is that we do have certain rights before the courts that they will enforce. These are not constitutional rights but they are there.
The problem with the currently enacted terror legislation (approved by both sides) is that only an administrative change in a definition is required. This does not (as far as I can ascertain) require this to even go back to parliament for approval.
The point is that we do have certain rights before the courts that they will enforce. These are not constitutional rights but they are there.