The US Constitution - It doesn't help

[3point14]

That displays almost as great a misunderstanding of the UK constitutional settlement as the OP displays of the US system.

True, but if the queen refused (for whatever reason) the royal assent, then there would be somewhat of a constitutional crisis. Not unresolvable, I suspect, but a little embarassing at the very least.

 

[brodski]

True, but if the queen refused (for whatever reason) the royal assent, then there would be somewhat of a constitutional crisis. Not unresolvable, I suspect, but a little embarassing at the very least.

No. It's pretty well established that the Monarch serves at the pleasure of parliament. The only question would be whether we replaced her or just got on without a Monarch.
Embarrassing sure, but not much more than if she turned up to the state opening of parliament pissed and started singing rugby songs.
And about as likely.

 

[Dancing David]

That was intentional in design, to keep the larger in population states from running roughshod over the smaller in population states.
I think that is importnat pary of the check and balances system.

Yup Delaware was worried about Pennsylvania controlling the president and the house

 

[Dancing David]

Crikey, some people do get very defensive on this subject.

Knock yourself out, I'm not the biggest fan of politics in my country anyway, I just wanted to learn something.

Crickey, you made a statement about a system, I pointed out the problems with another system.

I did not even mention what we have in common, tort law.

The point is the system is meant to check the power to abuse the system, secret detention and destruction of state documents are a huge problem here as well. Just not scanctioned.

 

[Cleon]

No. It's pretty well established that the Monarch serves at the pleasure of parliament. The only question would be whether we replaced her or just got on without a Monarch.
Embarrassing sure, but not much more than if she turned up to the state opening of parliament pissed and started singing rugby songs.
And about as likely.

So now that Liz is getting on in years, and Prince Chuck is in danger of soon becoming King Chuck...Has anyone in Britain started saying, "****, that guy's a moron, maybe we should give that republic thing a go?"

 

[LukeB]

If royalty was disqualified from taking the throne due to stupidity we'd be out of monarchs. Which isn't a bad idea...

 

[D'rok]

So now that Liz is getting on in years, and Prince Chuck is in danger of soon becoming King Chuck...Has anyone in Britain started saying, "****, that guy's a moron, maybe we should give that republic thing a go?"

Here are four words that might start a revolution* of sorts in Canada:

Charles, King of Canada


*Meaning we'll politely express our discontent and carry on as usual. Hockey's on and the beer's not gonna drink itself.

 

[brodski]

So now that Liz is getting on in years, and Prince Chuck is in danger of soon becoming King Chuck...Has anyone in Britain started saying, "****, that guy's a moron, maybe we should give that republic thing a go?"

By “that republic thing” do you mean a system of government which is, by definition, not democratic and in which the individual is sovereign and laws are merely advisory?

Or do you mean it in the normal sense?

In the normal sense then yes, some people are looking at a republican settlement, but the popularity of the next wave of Royals may put a damper on that.
I think we will be hampered in the same way that Australia was, the majority may not want a monarchy but a plurality may, with the remainder divided over what should replace our monarch.

 

[Cleon]

By “that republic thing” do you mean a system of government which is, by definition, not democratic and in which the individual is sovereign and laws are merely advisory?

Or do you mean it in the normal sense?

Dude.

In the normal sense then yes, some people are looking at a republican settlement, but the popularity of the next wave of Royals may put a damper on that.
I think we will be hampered in the same way that Australia was, the majority may not want a monarchy but a plurality may, with the remainder divided over what should replace our monarch.

Wait...the next gen of royals are popular? Including the kid who likes dressing up as a Nazi?

 

[Cylinder]

Why does it matter?

It matters because at its core, the US is a nation of laws. Our founders were wise enough to understand that government should be derived by consent of the governed and should be bounded by specific powers and that rights should be reserved for ordinary citizens.

It is not enough for a thing to be a good idea, since it may not be agreed upon <I>by the people who the thing would affect<\I> that the government should have that particular power.

 

[3point14]

Crickey, you made a statement about a system, I pointed out the problems with another system.

I did not even mention what we have in common, tort law.

The point is the system is meant to check the power to abuse the system, secret detention and destruction of state documents are a huge problem here as well. Just not scanctioned.

I much prefer the way you put it the second time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I really don't see that I'm criticising it? I'm not. I hope I'm not.

See thread title. It's hard to see that as anything other than criticism. I realize you couched this in the form of questions (though you've rejected several perfectly reasonable answers) and that you seem genuinely interested in learning about our system. However, you can't make the assertion that the Constitution doesn't help and then claim you're not criticizing our system.

And again, I think this has nothing to do with veneration of the founding fathers. If anything, the wisdom of the founding fathers is recognizing that politicians (themselves included) all tend to be scoundrels (whether corrupt from the start or corrupted by authority) and that it's very important that the authority of the various branches be limited and checked by a sort of circular transitivity of power (think rock-scissors-paper).

Thus the principles of our system (what I've been calling the rules) is far more important than the wisdom or integrity of the people involved. Otherwise, the best system would be a benevolent dictator. If a dictator were truly wise and compassionate, what's wrong with giving him absolute authority. (Didn't Churchill have something to say on that subject?)

But seriously, such a benevolent dictator might have some wonderful ideas that his absolute authority could make happen. Does it follow that whether or not the idea is good matters more than the question of whether or not we should put that much authority in one place? [ETA: And one way or another the question of the constitutionality of a law can always boil down to the question, "Does Congress have the authority to pass this law?"]

 

[Dancing David]

I much prefer the way you put it the second time.

You made a statement, I responded, so lets see,

'Good ideas' include killing homosexuals, beating your wife and slavery.

Your fallacy of construction is still there for everyone to read.

 

[3point14]

You made a statement, I responded, so lets see,

'Good ideas' include killing homosexuals, beating your wife and slavery.

Your fallacy of construction is still there for everyone to read.

I think you see offence where none is meant. I can understand that, there seem to be a lot of fairly irrational USA bashers around here, but I'm not one of them.

Sorry you took it as an insult to yourself or your country, it wasn't meant that way.

And I'm done.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'll admit to laziness. I'm not sure that's remarkable though.

Oh, and this is much more fun.

Plus, look at what else I've learned!

We've probably all learned a thing or two, so I'll apply the

"Puttin' the E into JREF" attaboy on this thread.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hockey's on and the beer's not gonna drink itself.

Once again, I am blessed with D'rokian wit on a Saturday morning.

Is that an original, or a common jest up North?

 

[billydkid]

The US Constitution IS the law. Period.
It limits what the Government may do.

But, unfortunately, does not. The reality is that the law is and means, ultimately, what those with the power, influence and authority say it is and means. The federal government has engaged in unconstitutional activity from the beginning and there is always some justification - "civil" wars, World Wars, wars on terror, wars on drugs - for the more egregious abuses of Constitutional authority.

 

[Dancing David]

I think you see offence where none is meant. I can understand that, there seem to be a lot of fairly irrational USA bashers around here, but I'm not one of them.

Sorry you took it as an insult to yourself or your country, it wasn't meant that way.

And I'm done.

The fallacy is that 'good ideas' should somehow just come into place, that is a fallacy. All those things have been considered good ideas at one time or another.

The point of the Cotus, which is by no means perfect, is that is moves by force of consensus. And it limits the power of the individuals within the positions of power.
So while Dred Scott was found to be property, it changed later, women got the right to leave abusive spouses and now a similar process is in place for the homosexuals.

So your statement that 'good ideas' should just prevail without regard to the process is silly.

DADT and DOMA are two legislative ideas that were considered good by some at the time, but they will hopefully fall due to 'being unconstitutional'.

Perhaps the problem is within your self, I am not offended in the least but the notion that "Shouldn't the question be whether it's a good idea for the country, productive, fair, useful and the like? " is silly unless you have a way to judge what that is, currently that is the problem that the Cotus tries to solve.

If there were not two chambers to the Congress, we would be in serious trouble from my POV, as the current right wing officials would dominate the process. Their idea of what is a 'good idea' and mine vary widely. I am glad that the Senate acts as it is supposed to, to allow the minority the power to move towards consensus.

So I am sorry you don’t understand the fallacy behind the phrase, “Shouldn't the question be whether it's a good idea for the country, productive, fair, useful and the like?”

Seriously what I think is fair is very different from the current majority in the HoR, what I think is productive is different, what I think is useful is different.

A system that does not have the balance of powers and questions like ‘is it constitutional’, would leave me and my POV at the mercy of the majority in the HoR.

That is your fallacy. Opinions differ upon what is “productive, fair, useful and the like”.

 

[rwguinn]

But, unfortunately, does not. The reality is that the law is and means, ultimately, what those with the power, influence and authority say it is and means. The federal government has engaged in unconstitutional activity from the beginning and there is always some justification - "civil" wars, World Wars, wars on terror, wars on drugs - for the more egregious abuses of Constitutional authority.

If you say so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, unfortunately, does not. The reality is that the law is and means, ultimately, what those with the power, influence and authority say it is and means. The federal government has engaged in unconstitutional activity from the beginning and there is always some justification - "civil" wars, World Wars, wars on terror, wars on drugs - for the more egregious abuses of Constitutional authority.

I think you're muddying the waters a bit here. Whether or not a law is constitutional is a different question from whether or not the "federal government" (I'm not sure which branch you mean) is following the law.


For example, in the Civil War, the Confederacy was clearly in violation of federal law. I disagree with you that the "war on terror" or "war on drugs" themselves are abuses of Constitutional authority. [ETA: Though I probably agree with you on whether or not those are good policies, or that they have been used to attempt to justify unconstitutional expansion of power.]

Remember, just because something is within Congress' authority doesn't mean it's a good idea or good policy. Similarly, just because something is a bad idea or bad policy doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Not only are the questions of good vs. bad policy and constitutional vs. unconstitutional two different questions, they are questions whose authority it is to answer fall in different branches of government.