Talk:Dr. Bonham's Case

controul
controul??? what does this term mean? can we explain this to the reader please? --Fredrick day 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "control" spelt in the 17th century :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some sources that quote the case have updated the spelling. One of those sources is now used, so "controul" is gone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph ends with sentence fragment
The second paragraph of this subsection ends with the fragment: "Noah Feldman argues that the academic". This doesn't appear to be the result of vandalism; it was added with the same edit which inserted most of the text. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad; thanks. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If only the GA reviewer has spotted this... BencherliteTalk 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edlin, expanded quote, Hamburger, recantantion, Adams
I've added a book by Edlin as a source for the lead's first paragraph: Edlin, Douglas. “Judges and unjust laws: common law constitutionalism and the foundations of judicial review”, page 7 (University of Michigan Press, 2008).

Edlin wrote: "Academics debate the proper understanding of this case. Some claim that Coke intended his opinion to serve as a legal jusitification for judicial review of primary legislation as that doctrine would later develop in the United States.  Others assert that Coke meant to offer nothing more than a statement of statutory construction, which posed no threat to the orthodoxy of English parliamentary sovereignty."

I've also expanded the initial quote in the lead:

"in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void...some statutes are made against law and right, which those who made them perceiving would not put them in execution."

The added text (here in bold) is from later in the same sentence in Coke's opinion; I think it shows the sentence is more ambiguous than it would have been without this material (this material suggests Coke was merely trying to do what the legislators wanted or would have wanted). I've added a footnote accordingly.

Regarding James Otis and the Writs of Assistance, Otis and others changed course by 1772 when Blackstone's Commentaries arrived in America. I've cited Hamburger for this.

Some sources say that if Coke meant to challenge parliamentary supremacy in this case, then he later expressed a different view. I've added a couple footnotes about that.

I'm also removing the unsourced sentence that begins: "Adams was asked by a doubtful judge...." This sentence is factually correct, but it is not presented chronologically. The incident occurred in June 1776, not in the 1760s, and Adams was interested in striking down all British laws because America was becoming independent. He made no mention of Coke or Bonham's case, and in the very next sentence discussed the need for Massachusetts to copy British common law temporarily until the state legislature could revise it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Please note that the nouns ‘licence’, ‘practice’, ‘advice’, etc are so spelt. The verbs ‘license’, ‘practise’, ‘advise’, etc are so spelt. They should be so used in the body of the article. In quotations, they should be in their original spelling, and followed by [sic] if this deviates from the standard English of today. — Chameleon 09:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Err. yes. I make sure to always use the initial quotes correctly. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
The lead read like a vehement attack on whatever the historical value of this case. I tried to tone it down. Comments are welcome. Nxavar (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)