Talk:Act of Sederunt

Reversion of revision 30862431
I've reverted revision 30862431 for the following reasons.


 * Wording edits are to commented-out text that is not part of the article text.
 * Remaining edits are largely stylistic choice with no benefits either way, such as:
 * en dashes instead of em dashes
 * bolding the titles of Acts. For (sub)sections, this is generally only done where there is a redirect to that (sub)section or if it's in the lead. When used in a manner similar to italics (as here in some cases), this shouldn't be done for "legal or constitutional documents".


 * The rephrasing to "replacing its de facto power" is uncited. The 1532 Act did not grant the Court any power to make Acts of Sederunt. Until the 1540 Act, it was Parliament that held the power. If there existed a de facto power in addition to Parliament's power, there should be a citation.

LiamMcS (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)