0

Here is a sentence I wrote:

In 1937, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council struck down Bennett’s New Deal legislation, ruling the reforms unconstitutional and outside of federal jurisdiction (Struthers 1983; ...).

Problem:

Is the second part of it: ". . . ruling the reforms . . . outside of federal jurisdiction" idiomatic? I meant to say that the court ruled the reforms unconstitutional and affirmed that some of the reforms were not under federal authority, and so the federal government was not allowed to implement them.

Background: Bennett's legislation, called New Deal, consisted of several different policy reforms. The court "declared many of the reforms unconstitutional and outside of federal jurisdiction."

Source: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bennetts-new-deal

1

...ruling the reforms unconstitutional and outside of federal jurisdiction... is idiomatic. It says nothing about reaffirming anything, and a bare and might not be the best way to present the information, but those are separate question really. You could easily fix it:

... ruling the reforms unconstitutional and reaffirming that some of them were not under federal authority and that the federal government was therefore unable to implement them...

or

... ruling that some of the reforms were outside of federal jurisdiction and that the federal government, therefore, had no constitutional authority to implement them.

Both of those sentences use the noun reforms rather loosely, as it is the subject or the purview of the reforms that lies outside of federal jurisdiction.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.