5 ms·

The US Constitution is not much to be jealous about. In Australia, if people are unhappy with laws, they can change the government, who in turn can change the l

by YPPH 4y ago

The US Constitution is not much to be jealous about. In Australia, if people are unhappy with laws, they can change the government, who in turn can change the laws. Meanwhile, in the US, the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents. The US has the highly undesirable situation of (1) the possibility of a deadlocked President (because Congress does not support them) (2) the possibility of a deadlocked legislature (because SCOTUS doesn't support them). The Australian Constitution completely sidesteps these conundrums. A bad PM can be ousted in a day. The High Court avoids getting into Constitutional rights disputes except in limited circumstances, such as undue burdens upon the implied freedom of political communication. I consider this significantly more desirable and the US offers nothing to be jealous of.

Aerroon 4y ago
>A bad PM can be ousted in a day. By whom? The parliament that confirmed him as PM? The parliament where the PM's party almost always holds the most seats? A parliamentary system essentially combines the executive and legislative powers to one party.
- Jedd 4y ago
  By the House (of Representatives), or in extraordinary circumstances by the head of state (currently the regent of the Commonwealth) but typically that requires the former to formally seek such a remedy from the latter. I believe by convention the deputy PM in Australia is necessarily a member of this group (also called the Lower House), though our PM could in theory be a member of the upper house (aka the Senate). I don't believe that's ever been the case, though. Fascinatingly our constitution mentions the role of Prime Minister precisely zero times -- it was assumed to be understood.
  - jaza 4y ago
    Going purely by our Constitution, technically all Ministers of State - that's all 42 people currently listed at https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_depart... - equally share Executive power (and technically they themselves have no power, they can only advise the Queen, and her representative, the Governor-General, who are the ones with the actual power). However, as with everything in the Westminster system, the written law is only part of the picture, and by convention, we have one Minister to rule them all, and he/she exercises actual Executive power.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  > By whom? Haha. You could ask: Gough Whitlam Kevin Rudd Julia Gillard Tony Abbot Malcolm Turnbull
- martin8412 4y ago
  Technically speaking, by Queen Elizabeth.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    I.e. by an unelected foreigner who asserts dominance through custom and tradition. I don’t know how long such arrangements can persevere, but it’d be delightful if they didn’t survive past Lizzie and Charlie. I mean, it’s the 21st century. If we have no gods, then why do we still have masters? Ontologically speaking, sovereignty in a secular nation can have no metaphysical assertions (“divine right to rule”), so there can be no legitimate claims of primacy over other humans. But this is well known. Perhaps it’s the invisible and inactive nature of British monarchy that permits it to survive: they do next no nothing publicly, so they don’t step on toes.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > A bad PM can be ousted in a day 1 person, appointed by the Queen. In this case it isnt a "slippery slope" where technically it could happen etc it happened. "The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... Later it was alleged that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam. There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time.
  - boffinAudio 4y ago
    >There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time. This was when Australians lost their sovereignty and became a puppet state of US corporations and intelligence agencies. Just like Germany.
    - MonkeyClub 4y ago
      Also just like the UK, one could say.
golergka 4y ago
> the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents Which means that these people are actually indirectly selected by voters, but are changed in a much slower way and will not be a series of populists who rewrite everything every time a political climate changes a bit. This sounds like a very good thing.
- krapp 4y ago
  That's a very good thing until a populist President, who didn't even win the popular vote, comes into office and stacks the court with loyalists who repeal basic rights supported by the majority of voters. Then voters are reminded of how little their votes actually matter, directly or indirectly.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by YPPH 4y ago

Aerroon 4y ago

>A bad PM can be ousted in a day. By whom? The parliament that confirmed him as PM? The parliament where the PM's party almost always holds the most seats? A parliamentary system essentially combines the executive and legislative powers to one party.

Jedd 4y ago
By the House (of Representatives), or in extraordinary circumstances by the head of state (currently the regent of the Commonwealth) but typically that requires the former to formally seek such a remedy from the latter. I believe by convention the deputy PM in Australia is necessarily a member of this group (also called the Lower House), though our PM could in theory be a member of the upper house (aka the Senate). I don't believe that's ever been the case, though. Fascinatingly our constitution mentions the role of Prime Minister precisely zero times -- it was assumed to be understood.
- jaza 4y ago
  Going purely by our Constitution, technically all Ministers of State - that's all 42 people currently listed at https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/parliamentary_handbook/current_ministry_list https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_depart... - equally share Executive power (and technically they themselves have no power, they can only advise the Queen, and her representative, the Governor-General, who are the ones with the actual power). However, as with everything in the Westminster system, the written law is only part of the picture, and by convention, we have one Minister to rule them all, and he/she exercises actual Executive power.
cookie_monsta 4y ago
> By whom? Haha. You could ask: Gough Whitlam Kevin Rudd Julia Gillard Tony Abbot Malcolm Turnbull
martin8412 4y ago
Technically speaking, by Queen Elizabeth.
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  I.e. by an unelected foreigner who asserts dominance through custom and tradition. I don’t know how long such arrangements can persevere, but it’d be delightful if they didn’t survive past Lizzie and Charlie. I mean, it’s the 21st century. If we have no gods, then why do we still have masters? Ontologically speaking, sovereignty in a secular nation can have no metaphysical assertions (“divine right to rule”), so there can be no legitimate claims of primacy over other humans. But this is well known. Perhaps it’s the invisible and inactive nature of British monarchy that permits it to survive: they do next no nothing publicly, so they don’t step on toes.
shapefrog 4y ago
> A bad PM can be ousted in a day 1 person, appointed by the Queen. In this case it isnt a "slippery slope" where technically it could happen etc it happened. "The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... Later it was alleged that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam. There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time.
- boffinAudio 4y ago
  >There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time. This was when Australians lost their sovereignty and became a puppet state of US corporations and intelligence agencies. Just like Germany.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    Also just like the UK, one could say.

golergka 4y ago

> the validity of laws is decided based upon the views of unelected bureaucrats appointed by past Presidents Which means that these people are actually indirectly selected by voters, but are changed in a much slower way and will not be a series of populists who rewrite everything every time a political climate changes a bit. This sounds like a very good thing.

krapp 4y ago
That's a very good thing until a populist President, who didn't even win the popular vote, comes into office and stacks the court with loyalists who repeal basic rights supported by the majority of voters. Then voters are reminded of how little their votes actually matter, directly or indirectly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]