3 ms·

surely that Act is by definition unlawful? I still don't really understand in the UK: Parliament has unlimited power and people talk quite a bit about formal

surely that Act is by definition unlawful? I still don't really understand in the UK: Parliament has unlimited power and people talk quite a bit about formal constitutions being a good model to be followed it seems a bit sad the attempt to protect the population against government using a formal constitution doesn't seem to work in reality (even when the wording is as clear as day)

dragontamer 3y ago
> surely that Act is by definition unlawful? Whose definition? Answer: The Supreme Court decides the definition of things. Its only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says so. That's how the USA can get away with... I dunno... the Office of Censorship in 1941. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship). Definitions change, not only due to different members on the Supreme Court, but also due to different circumstances (WW2 meant that the Supreme Court was willing to ignore the obvious incursion into the 1st Amendment, at least temporarily) EDIT: I always forget that it was actually the Office of War Information that did the Hollywood Censorship thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...), rather than the Office of Censorship.
- blibble 3y ago
  > Whose definition? I guess that's the underlying problem I'm not sure how you fix it really, though not having direct political appointees as top judges might be a good start (maybe put an LLM in charge of a supreme court? I kid, I kid)
damiankennedy 3y ago
You do have a King though. What would happen if the PM went to see him to form a government and they disagreed? The King is the one with armed guards, military rank and a fortress.
- samus 3y ago
  As part of his coronation, the King has sworn an oath to uphold the Law and to respect the primacy of Parliament. Not appointing the PM and his government has serious consequences as the PM is the leader of Parliament, which is the institution that has actually restored monarchy after the Glorious Revolution and which actually bankrolls the armed forces, and which was ultimately elected according to the Law by the citizens.
  - Randomizer42 3y ago
    The king is the de facto ruler, to say otherwise is being pedantic.
    - afthonos 3y ago
      No, this is pedantic:: De facto means in fact. Given that the king does no governing no, he is not, in fact, the ruler. You may be looking for de jure, though I question even that.
    - samus 3y ago
      The king of the UK still has to respect the Law. Being king does not mean that one can do as one pleased, or that there are no checks and balances. The last English king who tried to become an absolute ruler caused the English Civil War and was put on the chopping block by Parliament, as a matter of fact.
    - habinero 3y ago
      No, he's the ceremonial head of state. There's a polite fiction that all power comes from him, but he can't actually make anyone do anything. If he tried, people would say no. If he insisted, he'd get tossed out on his ear.

dragontamer 3y ago

> surely that Act is by definition unlawful? Whose definition? Answer: The Supreme Court decides the definition of things. Its only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says so. That's how the USA can get away with... I dunno... the Office of Censorship in 1941. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship). Definitions change, not only due to different members on the Supreme Court, but also due to different circumstances (WW2 meant that the Supreme Court was willing to ignore the obvious incursion into the 1st Amendment, at least temporarily) EDIT: I always forget that it was actually the Office of War Information that did the Hollywood Censorship thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...), rather than the Office of Censorship.

blibble 3y ago
> Whose definition? I guess that's the underlying problem I'm not sure how you fix it really, though not having direct political appointees as top judges might be a good start (maybe put an LLM in charge of a supreme court? I kid, I kid)

damiankennedy 3y ago

You do have a King though. What would happen if the PM went to see him to form a government and they disagreed? The King is the one with armed guards, military rank and a fortress.

samus 3y ago
As part of his coronation, the King has sworn an oath to uphold the Law and to respect the primacy of Parliament. Not appointing the PM and his government has serious consequences as the PM is the leader of Parliament, which is the institution that has actually restored monarchy after the Glorious Revolution and which actually bankrolls the armed forces, and which was ultimately elected according to the Law by the citizens.
- Randomizer42 3y ago
  The king is the de facto ruler, to say otherwise is being pedantic.
  - afthonos 3y ago
    No, this is pedantic:: De facto means in fact. Given that the king does no governing no, he is not, in fact, the ruler. You may be looking for de jure, though I question even that.
  - samus 3y ago
    The king of the UK still has to respect the Law. Being king does not mean that one can do as one pleased, or that there are no checks and balances. The last English king who tried to become an absolute ruler caused the English Civil War and was put on the chopping block by Parliament, as a matter of fact.
  - habinero 3y ago
    No, he's the ceremonial head of state. There's a polite fiction that all power comes from him, but he can't actually make anyone do anything. If he tried, people would say no. If he insisted, he'd get tossed out on his ear.