# Talk:Dr. Bonham's Case

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dr. Bonham's Case/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BencherliteTalk 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No ambiguous links.
No deadlinks (or, indeed, any links)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I made some minor copyedits, particularly per Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions changing "the College" to "the college".  Some very minor points to tidy, please: (I) the quotation in the first paragraph of "Impact in America": should that be "according to the Lord Coke"? (II) Which King? Specify and link, I think. (III) In the final paragraph, there are a lot of "mentioned"s and it could do with another turn of phrase; I'm too slow today to think of one. (IV) Similarly (sorry, not in order), the "later development" section has a few "ideas" where another word would add variety.  (V) Can't quite work out what's going wrong with this in the "assessment" section, but something is: "Ellesmere maintained it was unconscionable to allow the judges power to throw aside Acts of Parliament if they were repugnant or contrary to reason, he spoke "not of impossibilities or direct repugnancies"; it was acceptable to overturn an Act if it was clearly and obviously repugnant, but not otherwise"
"according to" fixed; for "mentioned" I'm using "discussed" and "brought up". Ellesmere I worked out - fixed, and split into two sentences. "ideas" - fixed with "theory" and "jurisprudence".
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
(I) You mention in the lead that the King was deeply unhappy with the decision, but I don't think this is made out by the text. (II) You say that Marbury is seen as referring to this case in its wording, but by who?  Is this a general view? (III) First paragraph of the "background" section: are English and British being used interchangeably here, by you or the sources, as "this continued" suggests, or not?
Re the King "deeply unpopular" is given; I seem to have failed to add a cite to Drinker's work. Whoops. Re Marbury, the view of Feldman was thus - that it is seen as X - and so I'm using his opinion; I can't find anything to the contrary. Drinker's work now added. Re English and British; the use of British is from the source, the use of English is mine (since the decisions and opinions given in that article are based around the attitude of the English courts, and the Scots have traditionally had some problems with the idea of the supremacy of Parliament - over the Act of Union vis a vis independence, for example). Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

On hold for these to be sorted out. Some of these are down as prose points, some as verifiability points, but don't worry too much about the subject heading – I clearly haven't... BencherliteTalk 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All fine now; I added in the King's name and reworded the English / British sentence to answer my own issues.  Nice work. BencherliteTalk 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've removed the following paragraph: 
However, given recent resurgence in ideas related to "common law constitutionalism" it would be inappropriate to forget the case entirely. Cases like Miller I and Miller II have served to create "hard and novel limits on executive authority". Academics like Cambridge professor Mark Elliott and Trevor Allan defend views of the English constitution where the executive is subject to limitations grounded in the common law.  The principles found in Bonham's case therefore remain valuable.
As far as I can tell, this is all WP:OR. it would be inappropriate and The principles found in Bonham's case therefore remain valuable. are obviously opinion, which aren't attributed to anyone, contrary to WP:V. They don't come from Elliott's article, which doesn't mention Bonham at all; it's WP:SYNTH to cite that here. I haven't been able to read Goldsworthy's article. Additionally, Miller and Miller II are hardly relevant; whereas they purport to bring up new constitutional principles from the common law, their tension is with the executive, not the legislature as in Bonham. Moreover Miller II has been abrogated by statute (Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, declaring the prorogation of Parliament nonjusticiable), which Bonham would suggest is impossible. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)