|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document  Britain doesn't have a constitution. Parliament wields the absolute powers of the monarch. It can do anything and everything beyond limit itself because its powers are limitless. However convention dictates a lot of how the powers are wielded. Traditionally the Prime Minister acted on behalf of the monarch regarding foreign policy, making and unmaking treaties at will. In recent years those powers have slowly been absorbed back into Parliament as a whole. This was notably recently with the Brexit court case in which a court ruled that Boris Johnson couldn't simply take the UK out of the EU as foreign secretary but rather a vote must be taken in Parliament. This was a break from centuries of tradition, but a break with precedent such as the Iraq War vote and the Libyan intervention vote. We basically make it up as we go.
I am in awe you people have made it as far as you have. That system stresses me out just thinking about it. Of course, it also removes the ability to blame the other branches of goverment for failure.
|
So, if the parliamant would vote to bring capital punishment back or to simply abolish itself that would sinply go through without a check of an independent institution? Interesting. Do you need a specific number of votes to change basic human right laws or similar?
|
Dred Scott lead to the 14th amendment, which I consider a net gain. It is a clear case of the legislature hoping the court will resolve a problem for them and it backfiring in spectacular fashion.
On April 06 2017 01:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, if the parliamant would vote to bring capital punishment back or to simply abolish itself that would sinply go through without a check of an independent institution? Interesting. Do you need a specific number of votes to change basic human right laws or similar?
They can't limit the next parliament, so I don't think they can dissolve the entire political system either.
|
|
|
That is some high level spin if I ever saw it.
|
United States43753 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I.
Bullshit. WWI was an inevitable consequence of the inability of the imperial system to accept the German superpower. The 18th Century powers divided the world between them. Then suddenly Germany appears as a superpower with industrial capacity and population that exceed that of the existing powers. The existing powers won't concede their position without war and Germany won't be relegated to an inferior status when it was quite clearly the dominant power in Europe. And so the only way Germany can realize its destiny as the premier European power is through a general European reset at the expense of the existing powers and the only way that can be done is through war.
Recent historiography has come down pretty heavily on the side that everyone wanted to avoid WWI except Germany and that everyone made a good faith effort to avoid it except Germany and that it would have easily been avoided if Germany had made even the slightest effort to do so. But Germany could never be a global power without conflict with Britain and France, and she knew it, and therefore deliberately sought to push the continent into war.
|
The weird thing is how they are saying Bannon is still some big important player. If some bomb she'll was about to land on Bannon, wouldn't they be reducing his involvement even more? Makes me wonder if the statement is true
|
United States43753 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, if the parliamant would vote to bring capital punishment back or to simply abolish itself that would sinply go through without a check of an independent institution? Interesting. Do you need a specific number of votes to change basic human right laws or similar?
We need one more yes vote than no vote in the Commons with no minimum number of votes required for a quorum. The Commons is the monarch and the monarch is law.
The House of Lords would probably kick it back as being in conflict with other laws, such as human rights laws, but the Lords is an advisory body. The Commons could simply repeal the laws it conflicted with and try again, or force it through.
|
On April 06 2017 01:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, if the parliamant would vote to bring capital punishment back or to simply abolish itself that would sinply go through without a check of an independent institution? Interesting. Do you need a specific number of votes to change basic human right laws or similar?
Well, officially all laws still need to receive Royal Assent from the Monarch. While this is basically a formality in present day (and if abused would basically lead to an immediate removal of the Monarch from any power), I think if Parliament were to sufficiently fuck up there is still that final check and balance.
The large difference between a British Parliamentary system and the US system is that, by nature of the majority power granted to the House of Commons, parties actually live and die by the laws they make. Less individual accountability for each representative, but far more group accountability come election time than the US system.
|
On April 06 2017 00:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 00:44 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 00:37 ticklishmusic wrote:President Donald Trump reorganized his National Security Council on Wednesday, removing his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and downgrading the role of his Homeland Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, according to a person familiar with the decision and a regulatory filing.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was given responsibility for setting the agenda for meetings of the NSC or the Homeland Security Council, and was authorized to delegate that authority to Bossert, at his discretion, according to the filing.
Under the move, the national intelligence director, Dan Coats, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, are again "regular attendees" of the NSC’s principals committee.
Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was elevated to the National Security Council’s principals committee at the beginning of Trump’s presidency. The move drew criticism from some members of Congress and Washington’s foreign policy establishment. BloombergI'd speculate that Bannon is falling out of favor with Trump after the last few failures. I have seen a slow but definite regression towards the Republican mean with Trump lately. It may or may not stick. He doesn't really have too many allies who aren't either pond scum or crooks though so he has little choice. Trump wants to 'win' and to do that he needs the GOP, not Bannon. He is finding out that his ability to do anything is rather limited without Congress backing him up. I wonder tho, with Bannon gone who is going to be Trump's inner circle representative on the NSC since he doesn't bother to go himself.
Looks like Kushner is getting a new job hue.
|
On April 06 2017 01:21 Plansix wrote:
That is some high level spin if I ever saw it.
I'll raise you this:
Blaming Susan Rice seems to be the new hot fad for team Trump.
|
United States43753 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, if the parliamant would vote to bring capital punishment back or to simply abolish itself that would sinply go through without a check of an independent institution? Interesting. Do you need a specific number of votes to change basic human right laws or similar? Well, officially all laws still need to receive Royal Assent from the Monarch. While this is basically a formality in present day (and if abused would basically lead to an immediate removal of the Monarch from any power), I think if Parliament were to sufficiently fuck up there is still that final check and balance. The large difference between a British Parliamentary system and the US system is that, by nature of the majority power granted to the House of Commons, parties actually live and die by the laws they make. Less individual accountability for each representative, but far more group accountability come election time than the US system.
An exception is made for Royal Prerogative, whereby the Prime Minister simply declares law in the name of the Queen through the Privy Council, a body which they appoints members to. The normal legislative process is that Parliament comes up with a law on behalf of the Queen and she signs it, making it law. But a number of powers were retained by the monarchy and subsequently made their way to the executive. Peerages are one of those powers, for example. This meant that the Prime Minister could, on their own authority and without oversight, stack the House of Lords with their friends by awarding them all peerages. It's happened a few times but it's considered bad form. Other powers wielded by the PM under Royal Prerogative included dismissing Parliament and calling elections. So if the PM decided not to call elections, such as what happened between 1935-1945, an election simply wouldn't be called.
|
They only have one stone and they as much blood as they can get.
It is going to be really funny when congress talks with people at the NSA and they say "Yeah, that was totally normal. She had clearance to see all of that."
|
On April 06 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. Bullshit. WWI was an inevitable consequence of the inability of the imperial system to accept the German superpower. The 18th Century powers divided the world between them. Then suddenly Germany appears as a superpower with industrial capacity and population that exceed that of the existing powers. The existing powers won't concede their position without war and Germany won't be relegated to an inferior status when it was quite clearly the dominant power in Europe. And so the only way Germany can realize its destiny as the premier European power is through a general European reset at the expense of the existing powers and the only way that can be done is through war. Recent historiography has come down pretty heavily on the side that everyone wanted to avoid WWI except Germany and that everyone made a good faith effort to avoid it except Germany and that it would have easily been avoided if Germany had made even the slightest effort to do so. But Germany could never be a global power without conflict with Britain and France, and she knew it, and therefore deliberately sought to push the continent into war.
Did you read the article I linked, KwarK? It has pretty solid evidence that the government saw the invasion of Belgium as a convenient excuse to avert a civil war over the Home Rule Bill.
|
Britain, the only country where anarchy or dictatorship is not done because of bad form :D I honestly never thought a system like that would exist and work fr as long and well as it did with GB. Let's just hope there isn't a serious test to it's capabilities to defend itself against totalitarianism.
|
On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I.
every court ruling on a set of unique facts (by virtue of being singular) in some sense creates "new law". let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that any constitution can be a "contract" that anticipates all contigencies. justice is the only social contract that judges should ultimately appeal to.
|
Then why didn't the WH say this from the start? Seems like another lie to cover up the shit storm that is getting worse by the week?
|
It can be and was likely both. Germany was going to go to war with someone and the UK had no interest in dealing with another France level world power.
|
On April 06 2017 01:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Then why didn't the WH say this from the start? Seems like another lie to cover up the shit storm that is getting worse by the week?
They simply aren't credible.
|
On April 06 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:They only have one stone and they as much blood as they can get. It is going to be really funny when congress talks with people at the NSA and they say "Yeah, that was totally normal. She had clearance to see all of that."
I mean I think everything is a gazigate lately, I mean I don't think she didn't do anything illegal, but I also don't think that the leak is complete coincidence.
If you want something to leak you don't have to leak it, you just have to legally spread the information as much as you can and it will leak on it's own.
I don't trust the domestic spying agencies whether Obama or Trump is running them. I wouldn't be upset if we did find out that there was some nefarious stuff going on in order to turn the right against the police state of domestic spying and actually try to get this stuff under control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
