AggieDave 6 #26 June 13, 2006 Quote Ok, well the Monachy generates far more revenue than it costs. As for a life of luxury, I personaly see it more like a life in a gilded cage. The costs aside, the monarchy was raised in response to your point that the Constitution is 200 years old so its no longer valid. Would you agree that the queen has influence in your country's politics, policy and law?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 June 13, 2006 Not really, shes basicly a figurehead her powers were taken away by another old document, the Magna Carter.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #28 June 13, 2006 Quote Not really, shes basicly a figurehead her pwers were taken away by another old document, the Magna Carter. I understand the history of the current situation. Now tell me directly that she has exactly no influence in the politics, policy and law of your country. None, not one bit of influence.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #29 June 13, 2006 She meets with the PM once a week for an update on matters of state. Not being privvy to the meetings its imposible to answer that question. However when former PMs (John Major & Maggie) have been asked in the past the answer has always been that the Queen never gives her political opinion. So no I don't belive she does. She does have to ratify new laws and has a veto but sould she ever try to exercise it it would most likely be the end of the monachy.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #30 June 13, 2006 >She does have to ratify new laws and has a veto but sould she ever >try to exercise it it would most likely be the end of the monachy. Has she discovered 'signing statements' yet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #31 June 13, 2006 She may have but I haven't. Whats that?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #32 June 13, 2006 >Whats that? It's a way to veto a law without vetoing it. (Signing statements cannot, like vetos, be overruled.) Basically, the president signs a bill into law (as required by the constitution) then attaches a 'signing statement' that states he will not heed the law, or does not interpret it the way Congress does. So far he has done this over 750 times. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #33 June 13, 2006 Blimy!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #34 June 13, 2006 Why EXTREAME left? Does it automaticly follow that pro gun people are right wing and anti gun people are left? Can you be a left wing pro gun person or vice versa?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 June 13, 2006 QuoteHow long ago was the constitution written? That makes as much sense as people living their lives by rules written 1500 years ago. Principles of freedom are timeless - they do not become invalid with age. Your one-line comments here, on the other hand, are invalid the moment you hit "enter". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #36 June 13, 2006 Quote Can you be a left wing pro gun person or vice versa? Sure you can. God always makes a rainbow. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #37 June 13, 2006 Quote It's a way to veto a law without vetoing it. So, in practice, what does that mean? Can you summarize for us? BTW - if you're a duck, and have no hands, how do you type?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #38 June 13, 2006 >So, in practice, what does that mean? Take one example - the anti-torture bill. Bush signed it into law. Ordinarily that would restrict the ability of the government to torture people (which was the intent of the law.) Bush added a signing statement that essentially said he could re-interpret the law to mean something different if he chooses to. Say, for example, his administration feels it neccessary to torture some Guantanamo Bay inmates to achieve a certain goal. He could do so and rely upon the signing statement to avoid legal trouble - trouble he might otherwise incur by violating a US law he signed. In this way, he avoids the risk of facing a congressional veto override, but achieves the same goal - not being bound by the new law. This neatly sidesteps one of the basic checks and balances between the three branches of government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #39 June 13, 2006 correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Bush did the same for wiretapping international calls.I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #40 June 13, 2006 Quote Bush added a signing statement So, from what branch of govt does a signing statement derive its authority? Executive? Legislative? Judicial? Hey - you still didn't answer the question. How does a duck type? I'm having trouble with that We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #41 June 14, 2006 QuoteHey - you still didn't answer the question. How does a duck type. I'm having trouble with that He pecks the keyboard with his bill. It's a slow process, but ultimately rewarding.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #42 June 14, 2006 Quote He pecks the keyboard with his bill. Thank you!We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 June 14, 2006 QuoteClearly economics isn't your strong point, lesson one not everone in the world uses the dollar Indeed, but just about every state involved in trade does invest in the dollar, as the health of that dollar bodes well for them too.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #44 June 14, 2006 QuoteQuote Not really, shes basicly a figurehead her pwers were taken away by another old document, the Magna Carter. I understand the history of the current situation. Now tell me directly that she has exactly no influence in the politics, policy and law of your country. None, not one bit of influence. The Queen is the Chief of State, though not head of government. However, the Throne does have influence in the geo-political stage. Nowadays, it is the Queen that may "run an errand" for country to meet with another Chief of State, or head of government. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #45 June 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Not really, shes basicly a figurehead her pwers were taken away by another old document, the Magna Carter. I understand the history of the current situation. Now tell me directly that she has exactly no influence in the politics, policy and law of your country. None, not one bit of influence. The Queen is the Chief of State, though not head of government. However, the Throne does have influence in the geo-political stage. Nowadays, it is the Queen that may "run an errand" for country to meet with another Chief of State, or head of government. I think it a wonderful idea to have a non politician as head of state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #46 June 14, 2006 "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" what's the point of being Queen if you can't say that once in a while? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 53 #47 June 14, 2006 The constitution protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #48 June 14, 2006 Quote"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" what's the point of being Queen if you can't say that once in a while? You've been reading too much Alice in Wonderland. "Feed your head"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 June 14, 2006 QuoteI think it a wonderful idea to have a non politician as head of state. So you supported Schwartzenegger? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #50 June 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteI think it a wonderful idea to have a non politician as head of state. So you supported Schwartzenegger? Not at all. There are other disqualifying attributes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
