Susano
Banned
In which case there wouldnt exist such a government fringe enough to make such a lawNot if the public opposed the law, which was the point he was making.
In which case there wouldnt exist such a government fringe enough to make such a lawNot if the public opposed the law, which was the point he was making.
In which case there wouldnt exist such a government fringe enough to make such a law![]()
In theory yes, though as Thande points out, the unelected House of Lords has blocked several unpopular motions in recent times.
What most people consider a constitution really doesn't matter. A constitution, at its root, is surely just the laws providing the framework for governance and legal rights within a state. Nothing about it has to be protected in any specific way, whether it be by two-thirds vote or anything else.Partially unwritten, at least, surely. I don't think there's anything written down to say, for example, that the Queen can't refuse assent to bills passed by Parliament at her whim, dismiss Gordon Brown tomorrow and replace him with Noel Edmonds, or order the naval bombardment of La Rochelle next week.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Bill of Rghts a 'conventional law'? I'm not aware of there being anything more preventing the Bill of Rights being repealed by a straight majority vote of Parliament than there is in repealing the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953 - which is at odds with what most people consider a constitution.
Of course the best solution for that is not to hope that some unelected guys by chance happen be on the same side as the people but to put the leash on government by more direct democracy...
But don't you see now the priveledged classes realise that they only keep those priveledges by doing what the people want. Hence when the Commons decide to go against public opinion then the Lords can seize the opportunity to be relevent and remind the public way they need them. At least thats my POV.
This assumes that such direct democracy will always function in a positive manner. As California shows this isn't always the case. Often democracy must be tempered by pragmitism and dedication to liberty.Of course the best solution for that is not to hope that some unelected guys by chance happen be on the same side as the people but to put the leash on government by more direct democracy...
This assumes that such direct democracy will always function in a positive manner. As California shows this isn't always the case. Often democracy must be tempered by pragmitism and dedication to liberty.
In theory yes, though as Thande points out, the unelected House of Lords has blocked several unpopular motions in recent times.
It's also worth noting that despite the lack of such a safeguard, the British constitution has survived longer and certainly more stably than almost any other.
Actually it happened under Victoria as well.
Nope. The last monarch to refuse royal assent was Queen Anne.
Also, it 'swung back' during Victoria early reign? Uh? Care to put some flesh on that one?
Depends, the Monarch must also consent to Bills being heard.
The "swing back" is really late Georgian (under the Prince Regent/ KGIV), and it went badly.