The Monarchy. Why?

Internationalist · 28-04-2008, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

Abortion is such a case because it wasn't much of an issue back when the constitution was created and because the US is very religious. Same sex marriage is another one, again because of religion. I cant see the UK having nearly as many problems..... other than us not respecting freedom as much as our US friends.

Once you appoint a commission or convention to start drafting a constitution you will find every lobby group in the country all over it. Then, once accepted, the judges will start using it to expand their power.

What right has any single generation got to entrench a 'constitution' in law that subsequent generations would find very difficult to change?

I am a supporter of parliamentary democracy. It's quite a good idea if only we were to give it a try.

kernow · 28-04-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northumbrian

I don't love the royal family or even like them, but at the same I don't want to see the monarchy abolished.
Just simply that there is no evidence to suggest a politician becoming a president in a republic would improve what we have now. And to consider changing something that's been part of our history for over 1000 years would require a strong reason.

I share your opinion!

MVW · 28-04-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

Once you appoint a commission or convention to start drafting a constitution you will find every lobby group in the country all over it. Then, once accepted, the judges will start using it to expand their power.

What right has any single generation got to entrench a 'constitution' in law that subsequent generations would find very difficult to change?

I am a supporter of parliamentary democracy. it's quite a good idea if only we were to give it a try.

The idea of the constitution would be to limit governmental power, not to actually set hundreds of laws. "Parliamentary democracy" as you put it, would still exist.

And lobby groups arnt all over this "Parliamentary democracy" ?

I'll have a look into this "Parliamentary democracy" you speak of

. I am just weary of the word "democracy". When someone says it I automatically replace it with "mob rule"

Internationalist · 28-04-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

I'll have a look into this "Parliamentary democracy" you speak of

Yes. As I said, it would be a good idea.

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

With a real constitution would it not be preferable?

We already have constitution. It is not that great I admit but we have it.

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

Can someone tell me why, in a logical manner, they love the Monarchy? (or why I should?)

I think it is a good thing because it is better than a president. I don't like the Windsors however and think we should definintely curtail the money they recieve and remove alot of their lands and palaces.

Westcountryman · 28-04-2008, 05:28 AM

No thanks, you can keep your codified constitution.

I'm a big believer in Parliamentary Sovereignty, and I don't want to see Parliament get bogged down because of some arcane document.

The current constitution works and is highly adaptable, I'd like to keep it that way.

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 05:38 AM

Yes it is one of those times I get to share one of my favourite quotes.

"'I voted against the constitution because it was a constitution!' said
the great French political philosopher, Pierre Joseph Proudhon during the
French Revolution of 1848 when he was asked why he had been among the tiny
minority of the National Assembly voting against proposals for a constitution.
His attitude was not based merely on his libertarian view that society should
be allowed to develop its institutions empirically and organically, rather
than by formal fiat. He also pointed out that in a constitution which divided
powers, the tendency would always be for the executive, the most rigid,
centralist and power-oriented branch of government, to take control. His
point was well taken, and history has given it justification in the centuries
since the American states adopted their own pioneer constitution. Louis
Napoleon Bonaparte, the president of France elected under the constitution
that Proudhon rejected, made himself first a dictator and then an emperor.
And with only brief intervals, the president of the United States has represented
all that is reactionary and overbearing in American life and in the American
attitude towards the world in general. I need hardly expand on the offences
against basic human rights that have taken place under the apparently benign
constitutions of the Soviet Union in the past, or the People's Republic
of China in the present."

- George Woodcock

A written constitution is not really a good thing, particularly when it takes little notice of existing institutions and is just an abstract idea of creating a prefect set up. It tends to be rigid and quickly out of date and seemingly subverted quicky enough in its attempts to seperate powers.

On the other hand I don't like the way our British constitution seems to amount to the Westminister(and now Edinburgh in some issues.) parliament having absolute power and if adaptability simply means it is able to being easily twisted to the wishes of the central gov't, that is a negative as well.

MVW · 28-04-2008, 06:41 AM

Well , for its faults, the US constitution has enabled the US citizens to keep their 2nd amendment. Something that may very well save them from a tyrannical government. As for us... we'd be fooked.

BonnieDundee · 28-04-2008, 06:49 AM

The US constitution has not stopped the central gov't and particularly the executive gaining more and more power. And the point is that we shouldn't just adopt what they have done, we need to adapt to our institutions.

Personally I think our current constitution is completely pathetic and has been for some time, the central gov't and particularly the commons have long ruled with a kind of legislative absolutism. Something Hayek attributed to helping the Americans to want independence as they believed it was agianst ancient Anglo-Saxon liberties. And indeed I can't imagine any real way of changing it without some written constitutional law, but I don't think we should copy the Americans.

28-04-2008, 05:28 AM	#27 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	No thanks, you can keep your codified constitution. I'm a big believer in Parliamentary Sovereignty, and I don't want to see Parliament get bogged down because of some arcane document. The current constitution works and is highly adaptable, I'd like to keep it that way. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

28-04-2008, 05:38 AM	#28 (permalink)
BonnieDundee Uber Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Between Mallaig and Cornwall. Posts: 2,809	Yes it is one of those times I get to share one of my favourite quotes. "'I voted against the constitution because it was a constitution!' said the great French political philosopher, Pierre Joseph Proudhon during the French Revolution of 1848 when he was asked why he had been among the tiny minority of the National Assembly voting against proposals for a constitution. His attitude was not based merely on his libertarian view that society should be allowed to develop its institutions empirically and organically, rather than by formal fiat. He also pointed out that in a constitution which divided powers, the tendency would always be for the executive, the most rigid, centralist and power-oriented branch of government, to take control. His point was well taken, and history has given it justification in the centuries since the American states adopted their own pioneer constitution. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the president of France elected under the constitution that Proudhon rejected, made himself first a dictator and then an emperor. And with only brief intervals, the president of the United States has represented all that is reactionary and overbearing in American life and in the American attitude towards the world in general. I need hardly expand on the offences against basic human rights that have taken place under the apparently benign constitutions of the Soviet Union in the past, or the People's Republic of China in the present." - George Woodcock A written constitution is not really a good thing, particularly when it takes little notice of existing institutions and is just an abstract idea of creating a prefect set up. It tends to be rigid and quickly out of date and seemingly subverted quicky enough in its attempts to seperate powers. On the other hand I don't like the way our British constitution seems to amount to the Westminister(and now Edinburgh in some issues.) parliament having absolute power and if adaptability simply means it is able to being easily twisted to the wishes of the central gov't, that is a negative as well. __________________ "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -Bruce Schneier How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and pss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.* Edward Abbey Leopold Kohr.

28-04-2008, 06:49 AM	#30 (permalink)
BonnieDundee Uber Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Between Mallaig and Cornwall. Posts: 2,809	The US constitution has not stopped the central gov't and particularly the executive gaining more and more power. And the point is that we shouldn't just adopt what they have done, we need to adapt to our institutions. Personally I think our current constitution is completely pathetic and has been for some time, the central gov't and particularly the commons have long ruled with a kind of legislative absolutism. Something Hayek attributed to helping the Americans to want independence as they believed it was agianst ancient Anglo-Saxon liberties. And indeed I can't imagine any real way of changing it without some written constitutional law, but I don't think we should copy the Americans. __________________ "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -Bruce Schneier How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and pss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.* Edward Abbey Leopold Kohr.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28-04-2008, 06:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
MVW Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Manchester , UK Posts: 37	Well , for its faults, the US constitution has enabled the US citizens to keep their 2nd amendment. Something that may very well save them from a tyrannical government. As for us... we'd be fooked.