 |
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
Ned, get over it.
The Canadian PM doesn't have absolute power. He has alot of power but its curbed by the precedent not to use it. Not all countries have written consititutions in the way the US does.
quote:
This is fundamentally at odds with principles argued by our founding fathers |
Key word being OUR. Jesus Ned, stop making the rest of us look bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
It would be better for you to actually understand the point both I and the founding fathers were trying to make about separation of powers. |
Ned. Thats the point. What in gods name do the founding fathers have to do with a thread about Canada??
Unless you happen to be talking about John A. Macdonald, George Brown or Alexander Campbell (who each had very different ideals and personal histories than the American ones BTW) then your argument is worthless. The Federalist papers are designed to comment on the prospects of Federalism in America. Only in America.
So you can take your extreme cultural relativism and shove it up your ass. Ignoramus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
NYE, on the Federalist Papers, they do note a flaw in the Westminster system in that the ability to appoint/remove and to control the salaries gives Parliament indirect power over all other bodies. Thus the nominal independence is not real.
Even in cases, analyzed in No.s 48&9, where there appears to be nominal independence, if one body actually controls the salaries of the other, and/or has the power of appointment or removal, the independence is subject to "encroachment." In the US constitution, therefore, there are limits on Congress's ability to affect the salaries of the other bodies. They may not reduce, for example, the salaries of judges. Neither may they increase or decrease the salary of the president.
The lack of independence means that the inferior power cannot stand against the tyranny of the superior, making extreme, tyrannical actions much more likely. |
That may heve been how it was in the 1770's, but the British system (and that in Canada) is a 'living' system. It evolves with time, as good ideas are recognised and implemented.
For Britain, government changed a great deal in the 19th century, and continued to change in the 20th. They are currently on another round of reforms. I read somewhere that a further degree of judicial independence is part of that.
In Canada, the independence of the judiciary was covered by Westminster and ourselves up until the Constitution Act of 1982. Under the Constitution Act, Parliament cannot change the pay for judges without the approval of an independent commission. Also, Parliament may not remove a judge on their own, period. Federally there is a judicial council composed of senior jurists from the various federal courts. That body may recommend removal of a federal judge to the Minister of Justice, and then both houses of Parliament must agree.
As far as salaries for the other two branches are concerned, the PM and cabinet are customarily MPs, therefore for Parliament to cut their pay would require cutting their own. Thus neither the executive nor Parliament can subvert each other on that basis.
I should think that the thought that went into the foundation of your Republic has already had some effect on the evolution of governments in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. So for most examples that you may produce based on the thoughts of 200 or so years ago, it should be possible to show that the concern has been addressed already.
However, there are still places that we can improve. That is why things like Senate reform, greater independence for MPs, and proportional representation are all things that are being discussed or debated in various parts of the country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
We could call ourselve "Yanks." But, we might hear complaints about that moniker from both Boston and from points South. |
Hey! How about just calling ourselves "US"? From now on when someone asks us what country we're from we can reply " I'm one ofUS , so what about you?" We will be able to proclaim " I'm proud to be one of US ." For the sake of good grammer of course the words WE and OUR should be substituted where grammatically appropriate. For instance " Today OUR forces once again pounded the enemy into dust." "WE are proud of our heroic President."
This creates a sort of problem for non-Americans, who will have to either adopt the same usage, in which case they essentially will be recognizing OUR world sovreignity, or they will have to use other words when referring to Americans. Perhaps they would choose "they", "them", "their" and "those". A French broadcaster might for instance announce "Today THEIR armed forces once again pounded the enemy into dust.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2004 19:42
America is the name of our country, so . . .
|