Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

Depressing statistics

Recommended Posts

1stamendmentrights.png

'nuff said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

1stamendmentrights.png

'nuff said

In Britain, we get around this problem by not having a constitution 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LegolasRedbard And your Govt. can arrest you anytime it wants for any reason it wants. The U.S is much more libertarian minded than Europe historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

@LegolasRedbard Why the double post?

Mobile phone posting has its perils

2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@LegolasRedbard And your Govt. can arrest you anytime it wants for any reason it wants. The U.S is much more libertarian minded than Europe historically.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/police/police-powers/

 

Reasonable ground is needed to arrest in the UK. However, I would argue our lack of constitution is a problem that needs fixing. It's all very well at the moment relying on customs and traditions with the Queen, but Charles looks certain to be a more active, and disruptive monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@LegolasRedbard And your Govt. can arrest you anytime it wants for any reason it wants. The U.S is much more libertarian minded than Europe historically.

 

1 minute ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Mobile phone posting has its perils

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/police/police-powers/

 

Reasonable ground is needed to arrest in the UK. However, I would argue our lack of constitution is a problem that needs fixing. It's all very well at the moment relying on customs and traditions with the Queen, but Charles looks certain to be a more active, and disruptive monarch.

Actually, the United Kingdom (well, just England at the time) passed, and had royal assent to, a Bill of Rights (with that exact document label) in the 15th or 16th Century that, while not as liberal and generous as the U.S. one, does offer protection from arbitrary arrest and property seizure by the Crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 

Actually, the United Kingdom (well, just England at the time) passed, and had royal assent to, a Bill of Rights (with that exact document label) in the 15th or 16th Century that, while not as liberal and generous as the U.S. one, does offer protection from arbitrary arrest and property seizure by the Crown.

And of course, the 1689 Bill of Rights, signed into law after the Glorious Revolution, was one of the main inspiration behind the US Bill of Rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LegolasRedbard @patine By that, I meant the utter lack of checks and balances, if parliament passes a law and the Queen signs it which limits basic human rights like Freedom of religion there's no court with the authority to strike it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LegolasRedbard said:

And of course, the 1689 Bill of Rights, signed into law after the Glorious Revolution, was one of the main inspiration behind the US Bill of Rights

Yes. In fact, the English Civil War, and later, the Glorious Revolution, were Parliament's answers and responses to the Stuart Kings feeling they could just ignore all the rules and agreements made by the Tudor and previous monarchs over rights and Parliamentary powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

@LegolasRedbard @patine By that, I meant the utter lack of checks and balances, if parliament passes a law and the Queen signs it which limits basic human rights like Freedom of religion there's no court with the authority to strike it down.

You mean like in "V for Vendetta," for instance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine In a hypothetical instance,this could potentially happen in practice as it did in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes. In fact, the English Civil War, and later, the Glorious Revolution, were Parliament's answers and responses to the Stuart Kings feeling they could just ignore all the rules and agreements made by the Tudor and previous monarchs over rights and Parliamentary powers.

Which leads me to hope that Prince Charles will bear history in mind and not abuse his power when King as he has done as prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

@Patine In a hypothetical instance,this could potentially happen in practice as it did in Germany.

It could be gotten away with in the U.S., too. A President who had a tight-knit caucus elected with them into power, then "accidents" for 5 or more Supreme Court justices, leaving vacancies to fill, and then passing amendments to the Constitution, blackmailing State governments to ratify by threatening to cut off the Federal funding and services, that have, in the modern day and age, become absolutely ESSENTIALLY to the functioning and even survival of the majority of States. In fact, I think I may use these ideas if I go back to my hypothetical near future scenarios (or make new ones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine yes but it is much more difficult to do so in the U.S in practice, FDR (the Dems controlled close to ~75% of Congressional seats) once tried to extend the number of Supreme Court justices to have a safe majority and the benefits of an unfettered agenda went out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×