Tweet
Originally posted by Heraclitus
View Post
-
Don't try to troll me. -
First of all, it would be better if you had clearer rules governing those situations so there wouldn't be such vague boundaries of what is and isn't allowed.
Second, why not have courts handle that? Judges who spend their lives studying and understanding the law. I'd think they'd render better decisions in those situations than someone whose only qualification is being the son or daughter of the previous king.Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - RahComment
-
Originally posted by OzzyKP View Post
You can't account for everything in the present and in the future. We find it better to have a set of principles and apply them as odd situations come up.
Second, why not have courts handle that? Judges who spend their lives studying and understanding the law. I'd think they'd render better decisions in those situations than someone whose only qualification is being the son or daughter of the previous king.
The subject of who is PM should not be delayed when the situation of dismissing and inviting a new PM comes up. It is normally clear that a PM has to go (lost an election) and he resigns, immediately followed by an invitation to someone else to form a government. We never go without a government.
In the event that the matter of who should be PM is less clear, say two MPs have the backing of an equal number of MPs, I'm not sure I want a judge picking a favourite.
Furthermore, some of the powers are not suited to tossing off to the judiciary at all. You think a judge should have a veto over legislation? A veto that cannot be over-ridden? Some of the reserve powers are of a 'use once, then the system blows up and needs to be put back together' sort. Witholding royal assent to an important piece of legislation may be such a one-use power. It would be a final check against very, very bad government doing something really stupid such as making unorthodox modifications to the Constitution.
Of course, we could change our system. There are other ways that it could work. However, we don't feel a need to do so (most of us) as it works at least as well as any other system on offer, and a good deal better than most.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
This is not rocket science. Just have your head of state elected separately. Problem solved.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Why?
As it is it is a depoliticised position.
How would electing someone make it better?(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Because then the head of state would be accountable to the people.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
They are accountable...You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.Comment
-
Originally posted by DanS View Post
So, why are your supreme court justices not elected?(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Describe, please.Originally posted by Krill View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have any problem with that. But even if they are not directly accountable, the people who appointed them and vetted them in public hearings are accountable.Originally posted by notyoueither View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Originally posted by DanS View Post
As is the PM who decides who will be appointed as GG. The monarch and the GG have far less impact on the daily lives of residents and political affairs of Commonwealth nations than any of your SC justices do in yours.
Furthermore, the monarch is accountable. A 'bad' monarch can be removed.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
Can the queen veto this choice?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Choice of nominee for GG?
Yes, theoretically, but not without very good cause. Part of the structure of our government(s) is that the monarch (and GG as the representative of the monarch) accepts the advice of the PM.
The only time the monarch would not go along with what is recommended would be during a crisis, say like Edi Amin Canuck wanting to appoint himself or his spouse as GG.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.Comment
-
The Australian Monarchial system has a double layer, the Governor-General with vast reserve powers with the Queen separately behind him. The GG can be dismissed instantly without reason by the Queen. This fact effectively limits the use of his powers to reasonable emergency use only as any other use would lead to instant dismissal. The threats of instant dismissal is a very important balancing mechanism in the Australian constitution. The Prime Minister can become very powerful if a majority party subordinates to him and has control of both houses, a rare outcome but happens every half dozen elections or so. The GG's power of instant dismissal of PM limits the use of that power. Likwise the Queens power of dismissal of GG limits that power. The end result is a system that works well.Comment
-
It took over 200 years for a Bush v. Gore to happen. I no longer think that we can get by calling these possibilities theoretical.Originally posted by notyoueither View PostI came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
Comment