| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Some poor girl freaked out on a plane and they all freaked out themselves thinking she was for blowing the thing up.
Apparently the authorities first claimed she was carrying banned items on the plane aswell as fundamentalist literature. That has now been confirmed as incorrect. Nevertheless, she has been placed under arrest for disturbing the peace.
|
Ironic. When initial reports exist of there being bombs in the twin towers, which were later proved wrong, you claim cover up.
When initial reports suggest that this girl was carry banned items and fundamentalist literature, then that's just developing news.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
Some poor girl freaked out on a plane and they all freaked out themselves thinking she was for blowing the thing up.
Apparently the authorities first claimed she was carrying banned items on the plane aswell as fundamentalist literature. That has now been confirmed as incorrect. Nevertheless, she has been placed under arrest for disturbing the peace.
|
Ironic. When initial reports exist of there being bombs in the twin towers, which were later proved wrong, you claim cover up.
When initial reports suggest that this girl was carry banned items and fundamentalist literature, then that's just developing news. |
I see your point, especially as there were dozens, maybe hundreds of witnesses who saw the contents of her bag. There was also quite a large amount of video footage apparently showing what really did look like a screwdriver, bottled drinks and fundamentalist literature.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
I agree with that last comment completely. Its more the idea of 'incrementalism' rather than stating open fascist dictatorship. I'm certainly concerned at the precedents that have been set since 911. Particularly with how the police and security forces are being trained both here and the US. Those developements are VERY scary.
I must say, i am delighted at your reasoned support for my views on this particular subject. I'm very glad we have finally found some common ground. Its important that we all do.
I must also say that i had you pegged wrong. With all the exposure to opponents of my opinions recently, it was all too easy for me to lump all you guys together. Particularly after reading one of Jay Refs obscene rants on how we are the really really good guys fighting the nasty evil Islamoids. Urgh.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
Some poor girl freaked out on a plane and they all freaked out themselves thinking she was for blowing the thing up.
Apparently the authorities first claimed she was carrying banned items on the plane aswell as fundamentalist literature. That has now been confirmed as incorrect. Nevertheless, she has been placed under arrest for disturbing the peace.
|
Ironic. When initial reports exist of there being bombs in the twin towers, which were later proved wrong, you claim cover up.
When initial reports suggest that this girl was carry banned items and fundamentalist literature, then that's just developing news. |
I see your point, especially as there were dozens, maybe hundreds of witnesses who saw the contents of her bag. There was also quite a large amount of video footage apparently showing what really did look like a screwdriver, bottled drinks and fundamentalist literature. |
I bet what really happened is people thought they saw a screwdriver and fundamentalist literature, or misheard someone else, and they were mistaken
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure. You bet on that JP.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
Er, what constitution? The UK doesn't have one. The Government is elected with a majority so they can effectively do anything they want.
That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. Even if the Prime Minister isn't elected independently of the MP's, there should be some Ministerial oversight in who gets put forward for Cabinet posts.
That is the one thing about the US that I like: oversight Committees. Our cross-party committees, as far as I know, don't have that much power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
Er, what constitution? The UK doesn't have one. The Government is elected with a majority so they can effectively do anything they want.
That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. Even if the Prime Minister isn't elected independently of the MP's, there should be some Ministerial oversight in who gets put forward for Cabinet posts.
That is the one thing about the US that I like: oversight Committees. Our cross-party committees, as far as I know, don't have that much power. |
Yeah, I've been reading up a bit on the UK's system. I'm woefully ignorant about it, I'm afraid. One thing I can't figure out. Since there's no formal constitution, I suppose that means that there's no such thing as "unconstitutional". What methods, then, are available to the citizens and the courts to challenge the legality of Acts of Parliament?
Relying on common law and tradition seems to have worked quite well for the most part, but it seems that a government could (at least theoretically) seize total dictatorial control and it would be perfectly "legal". Do I have that right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
Er, what constitution? The UK doesn't have one. The Government is elected with a majority so they can effectively do anything they want.
|
No they can't. That's what the opposition is for. When the House of Commons votes on something, the whole house votes, not just the Labour Party.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | scubadiver wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
Er, what constitution? The UK doesn't have one. The Government is elected with a majority so they can effectively do anything they want.
That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. Even if the Prime Minister isn't elected independently of the MP's, there should be some Ministerial oversight in who gets put forward for Cabinet posts.
That is the one thing about the US that I like: oversight Committees. Our cross-party committees, as far as I know, don't have that much power. |
Yeah, I've been reading up a bit on the UK's system. I'm woefully ignorant about it, I'm afraid. One thing I can't figure out. Since there's no formal constitution, I suppose that means that there's no such thing as "unconstitutional". What methods, then, are available to the citizens and the courts to challenge the legality of Acts of Parliament?
Relying on common law and tradition seems to have worked quite well for the most part, but it seems that a government could (at least theoretically) seize total dictatorial control and it would be perfectly "legal". Do I have that right? |
As far as I know, they'd have to pass the law through the House of Commons and and the House of Lords, as well as having the law approved by legal experts. It would require both the Governing party and the opposition party to agree such a thing, which is very unlikely, seeing as the opposition would never agree to giving the other party total control. There is also the Queen. You may laugh, but she has to agree to every law passed. She's never turned one back as far as I know, but being a patriotic kind of lady, I doubt she, or any member of the royal family, would ever allow their country to be signed over to a dictator.
Should such a thing occur though, Parliament would lose control over the Armed forces, because their loyalty oaths are to the head of state, not parliament.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | scubadiver wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | I don't know enough about British power-sharing structures to comment on the third article, but it strikes me as a Chicken Little piece. I've seen the AlterNet piece before, and it's nothing more than hysteria. |
Hey, slow down there CM.
Only just realised what you were refering to. This story has caused quite a stir and is certainly no chicken little piece. It will allow new laws to be passed with absolutely no oversight. It is very serious. I'll dig up a bit more info on it. |
If it happens, that is very serious. It's great that this story is causing a stir--it should.
Does your court system allow for challenges to the constitutionality of such changes? Is there any chance these changes would be deemed constitutional? If it upsets the balance of power, I doubt it. But again, I don't know your system too well.
You certainly should join in and fight these changes. If the changes are implemented, you should continue to fight them. I'm certain you won't be alone.
It just doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling (unless your constitution is weaker than I suspect). People in power are constantly trying to extend and retain their power. That's why we have systems with checks and balances. |
Er, what constitution? The UK doesn't have one. The Government is elected with a majority so they can effectively do anything they want.
That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was. Even if the Prime Minister isn't elected independently of the MP's, there should be some Ministerial oversight in who gets put forward for Cabinet posts.
That is the one thing about the US that I like: oversight Committees. Our cross-party committees, as far as I know, don't have that much power. |
Yeah, I've been reading up a bit on the UK's system. I'm woefully ignorant about it, I'm afraid. One thing I can't figure out. Since there's no formal constitution, I suppose that means that there's no such thing as "unconstitutional". What methods, then, are available to the citizens and the courts to challenge the legality of Acts of Parliament?
Relying on common law and tradition seems to have worked quite well for the most part, but it seems that a government could (at least theoretically) seize total dictatorial control and it would be perfectly "legal". Do I have that right? |
As far as I know, they'd have to pass the law through the House of Commons and and the House of Lords, as well as having the law approved by legal experts. It would require both the Governing party and the opposition party to agree such a thing, which is very unlikely, seeing as the opposition would never agree to giving the other party total control. There is also the Queen. You may laugh, but she has to agree to every law passed. She's never turned one back as far as I know, but being a patriotic kind of lady, I doubt she, or any member of the royal family, would ever allow their country to be signed over to a dictator.
Should such a thing occur though, Parliament would lose control over the Armed forces, because their loyalty oaths are to the head of state, not parliament. |
So there are substantive checks and balances, just not formally codified? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
However if they have a majority and use their whips then things can get passed failry easily. It is fairly messed up. The worst case of this was the introducion of top up fees which Labour got through, only due to their Scottish MP's voting for it. These fees did not even effect Scotland who now have their own parliament and make their own desicions on such matters.
The House of Lords and the Judiciary act as our constitution. There is also the European Court of Human Rights where we can go if it gets to that.
IMO we are only going to have to put up with this system for another 5/6 years as people start to awaken to all the issues that we are not told about. Enviroment/Oil/911/the fragilty of the banking system. The predicted economic collapse brought about by the dollar crashing will only bring this change sooner.
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
