Create a 5 pages page paper that discusses the (imaginary) trial by jury act 1985 provides for the following: 1)a person is entitled to a trial by jury if he so chooses. 2)this act may only be amended

Create a 5 pages page paper that discusses the (imaginary) trial by jury act 1985 provides for the following: 1)a person is entitled to a trial by jury if he so chooses. 2)this act may only be amended or repealed by a majority vote of 75% of the members of the house of commons and 75% of the m. Attempts by the government to change the provisions and practicality of the Trail Jury Amendment Act 1985, saw the adoption of the Amendment Act 2011. This Act became effective through approval and voting by 55% of the majority of the House of Commons. In seeking approval by the House of Lords, the Amendments Act 2011 only received a majority vote to the tune of 52%.

From the above analysis, I will advise Berne to pursue with the purpose of disputing and questioning the validity of Amendment Act 2011 in determining the case. The grounds for this kind of advice shall base on the fact that this Act breached the provisions of the constitutions required in repealing the Trial Jury Act 1985. In satisfying this argument, I will advice Berne to hold on the following points that indicating elements of breach of the constitution. First, the Trail Jury Act 1985 provided clear framework that required casting of a majority of 75% by Members of the House of Commons before actual repealing and adjustment. This provision at any point does not cohere with the manner in which the Amendment Act 2011 faced approval and adoption as law. Instead of the majority vote of 75% by the Members of the House of Commons, the Amendment Act 2011 passed by a majority vote of 55% by the Members of the House of Common, which is far below the threshold. Second, the Trail Jury Act 1985 exemplified that a majority vote of 75% by the Members of House of Lords was basic in attempts to amend the provisions under the Act. However, this ceased to be case when the Amendment Act 2011 got approval of a majority vote of 52% by the Members of the House of Lords. This approval was in total contrast with the provisions for amending Trial Jury Act 1985 and thus invalid for use as law to govern judicial proceedings.

I will also advice Berne to call for dismissal and disregard of the provisions of the Amendment Act 2011 considering that it tended to sabotage on the fundamental human rights.