Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Bluebottle]

The American two chamber system is meant to represent the populace (house of representatives) and the state governments (Senate).  Made more sense when people had stronger identification with their home state than they do now so that regional interests could be protected.

President can veto (though congress can over-ride a veto) and the courts can review it and declare it unconstitutional.   This last power has been somewhat controversial of late.

Yeah, a lot of people forget that the Senate used to be elected by the state legislatures. Congress approved the amendment changing that in 1911 (same year the House of Lords was defanged, I notice) and it was ratified by the required 75% of the states in 1913.  After which the Senate became the kinda superfluous House 2.0 that Blue describes, although it does still have shadows of its original role in giving a disproportionately larger voice to smaller states.

Mmmm, didn't know that actually. That's rather interesting. It would still be a "superfluous House 2.0" in the Montesquieu sense, of course. A second unelected aristocratic chamber to curb the first one being central to his theory of separation of power.

Well, I guess the point for him was to have both the separation and an equilibrium of power. Which isn't easy to achieve, admittedly.

[Bluebottle]

If Cameron is arguing the Lords acted unconstitutionally by stepping out their bounds, then heis acting unconstitutionally by trying to deny the Lords a power it has statutory right to use.

Well that's the other thing about having an unwritten constitution, isn't it? The Commons can do whatever the fuck it wants and all you can do is try to vote them out of office five years later.  Or before last Parliament, vote them out of office whenever the PM chooses to call an election at the most politically advantageous time.

Hm, to my mind that's where the courts should step in. As, even if you have an unwritten constitution, it still has a normative dimension, that needs to be enforced in some manner. Which seems to be the normal role of the courts in most societal matters.

Whether that's how the British system solves it, I don't know. Is the British supreme court able to make judgments in constitutional matters?

[Eldorion]

Hm, to my mind that's where the courts should step in. As, even if you have an unwritten constitution, it still has a normative dimension, that needs to be enforced in some manner. Which seems to be the normal role of the courts in most societal matters.

Whether that's how the British system solves it, I don't know. Is the British supreme court able to make judgments in constitutional matters?

Nope.  The Brits didn't even have a supreme court until 2009, when it took over from the Law Lords.  It cannot overturn legislation because it is still subject to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.  Interestingly, the European Convention on Human Rights seems to be one of the few if not the only exception to this.  So the UK has a supreme court, that just turned six years old, that does not have the power to enforce its own country's constitution, but does enforce rules set up by the Council of Europe.  It does function as the court of last resort for most cases arising in the UK, a function previously carried out by the House of Lords in a truly bizarre example of fusion of powers.

[Bluebottle]

That sounds a right mess.

Then again, our supreme court pretty much made up it's own ability to try the constitutional nature of normal legislature itself.

[Eldorion]

It gets more bizarre.  I was going to edit this part in until I saw you posted:

[As a footnote:] Criminal cases in Scotland end up before the High Court of Justiciary.  Sometimes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gets involved, but most of their appeals come from outside the normal legal system(s) in the UK.  Interestingly, the JCPC also hears appeals from outside the UK, not just the crown dependencies and overseas territories, but also several independent Commonwealth countries (including Jamaica, the Bahamas, and until 2003, New Zealand).  Some of these Commonwealth countries are actually republics that do not retain the Queen as head of state, but still use the UK's Privy Council as their court of last resort.

Then again, our supreme court pretty much made up it's own ability to try the constitutional nature of normal legislature itself.

That's basically what the SCOTUS did too.  There's nothing about judicial review of laws in the Constitution.  John Marshall decided the Court should have that power about 15 years after the fact and wrote his justification for that into the decision in Marbury v. Madison.

[Pettytyrant101]

As Eldo says it doesn't work like that here- being an ancient system that evolved by change in weird ways, the actual process of how its likely to be dealt with is straightforward, might get complicated by wider arguments.
What I expect to happen is that the government will come back to Parliament with a bill to make the changes- what they propose will determine the result.
Most likely they will to do something fairly sneaky, like claim as the changes are necessary to stop the Lords acting on financial matters its a financial bill- meaning it wont go to the Lords and they cant reject it.

Its worth noting this whole mess is Osbournes own fault- he made a terrible political miscalculation- two major ones in fact- the first was underestimating the opposition on his own side to the fact that constituents they had to deal with and whom they had promised if they worked hard, paid their taxes and did the right thing, the Tory's were on their side, they won an election on saying they were the party of the working poor and now those same people are facing savage cuts in their income- more than enough to push a struggling family well below the poverty line, and hitting way more single mothers than any other group- even Tory press were opposed.

The second massive error was trying to take a shortcut- he gambled that the Lords wouldn't dare reject it and put it through as  standing order bill rather than a finance bill, because a finance bill requires more debate time in the Commons- uncomfortable given who the cuts hit- and the order is faster to get through and implement.

His political judgement was a mile off both times.

If the Commons does pass a Government bill to reduce the Lords powers in some areas and even if it does go to the Lords, I cant see them rejecting it.
Right now they are just pushing the boundaries a bit, that would be really crossing a line in the sand.
The bigger danger is they have opened a can of worms- reform of the Lords, making it elected is one of the few things with quite a lot of broad party support. If Cameron isn't careful, and he might not be able to stop it, the Commons might demand a full debate on proper reform.

But Camerons current peril- which has been seen reflected in the press- is that he looks childish, throwing his toys out of the pram and trying to get revenge because they wouldn't support his very unpopular, immoral bill.

'Criminal cases in Scotland end up before the High Court of Justiciary.'- Eldo

Scotland has, and has always has since the Union began its own entirely separate legal and education system.

[Eldorion]

Scotland has, and has always has since the Union began its own entirely separate legal and education system.

I know, I just thought it worth mentioning since the SCOTUK (I swear I will try to make this acronym catch on) has appellate jurisdiction over Wales and Northern Ireland.  And yes, I know Wales is part of the same legal system as England and that Northern Ireland is constitutionally sort of gimped in a lot of ways.  But it's easy to forget how asymmetric the pattern of not just devolution but constitutional and legal issues in general are in the UK.  At least for me.

[Bluebottle]

That's basically what the SCOTUS did too.  There's nothing about judicial review of laws in the Constitution.  John Marshall decided the Court should have that power about 15 years after the fact and wrote his justification for that into the decision in Marbury v. Madison.

That's pretty impressive. It took our supreme court 52 years to establish the concept, (in 1866) and then another 52 years to actually use it. (In 1918.) And even then the power they granted themselves was quite limited, both in use and reach. (They for instance have always been very careful on ruling on the inner relationships between the different branches of government.)

I do think it's a legal necessity in societies like ours to have separate branch of government uphold the statutes of the constitution, hold the other branches of government to it and have the final word. Although, I guess someone from a legal background is rather likely to say that and see the legal solution first.

The problem for you I guess, is that you have politicized the supreme court to the degree you have. We try to keep politics separate from the legal side of things. (Although, that's only a consideration that works so far.)

[bungobaggins]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995227/Paris-shooting-Many-feared-dead-live.html

[bungobaggins]

The world has an Islam problem. This is absolutely ridiculous.

[Pettytyrant101]

Horrible. Just fucking horrible.

[azriel]

More propaganda. Whether Islam should be banned, tho how the hell could you enforce that ?, THIS horror shouldnt happen to ANYONE !!! poor kid !!! only fooking 14 FFS !!

[halfwise]

That's hard to even think about. Unbelievable.

[malickfan]

Cowardly F******.

My thoughts and sympathies are with everyone in France.

[Mrs Figg]

this makes us stronger. those fuckers will reap the whirlwind. this must not change one second of our daily lives. we will prevail.

[azriel]

"man" just cant stop fighting. He's got a rebellious gene that just cannot settle. "We" are destroyers of the worst kind. If any of this is to stop Im honestly thinking that there has to be genetic intervention at the foetal stage. When "man" is an embryo. The horror goes on, talks go on, upheaval & condemnation goes on yet "man" still destroys

[Pettytyrant101]

Well maybe women shouldn't have a preference for selecting for breeding 'alpha males', 'strong men' and 'bad boys' then.

[azriel]

I dont know anymore than you do what the resulting answer is here. It just seems to me to be relentless. We dont all pick "super hunks" as breeding fodder. Some of us ladies are given little choices in life. For myself, I value brain over brawn. Women are capable of being spiteful too.But how much educating can people give out ? With issues & problems as big & blinding as these who can find a sensible solution that will stand the test of time ?

[Pettytyrant101]

Thing is there is more than 1 problem here to solve.
There is the wider Middle-east issue, which cannot be addressed without dealing with Israel and Palestine.
Syria is in a civil war, but on top of the civil war there is an international war going on with three sides who are superpowers and Iran in there. And sometimes folk on one side of the civil war we support are also on the ISIS or Iran side. Or they are opposed to Assad and so are enemies of the Russians and therefore if we support them we make ourselves enemies of the Russians.
And thirdly in Syria there is a huge merc problem- most of the fighting is being carried out not by religious Muslim fanatics but mercs for hire. We have to find a way to greatly reduce the incentive for them getting involved.

[David H]

It seems to me that whenever there's a tragedy, human nature seems to require that we divide up into two teams and start calling each other names, just like in PE class, and the voices of reason often get lost.

[Mrs Figg]

this has got nothing to do with gender or race. its about victim mentality leaching onto the nearest 'cause' for its own selfish ends. IS don't give a shit about the plight of Palestinians, if they could they would probably start murdering moderate Palestinians too. this is about the under classes using religion and politics to gain territory and an empire. that's why the banlieue of Paris is a breeding ground for grievance.

[Pettytyrant101]

we divide up into two teams and start calling each other names, just like in PE class, and the voices of reason often get lost.- David

Well Doctor Who, might just be a silly little tv show, but its message last week was spot on and timely.

Transcript of the relevant bit to this conversation-

'Because it's always the same.
When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who is going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn.
How many hearts will be broken?
How many lives shattered?
How much blood will spill until everybody does what they were always going to have to do from the very beginning?
SIT DOWN AND TALK!!'


The Doctors right about that, story or not- even the worst wars in history WW1 and 2 ended in talking and reconciliation.
It would be nice if folk, just for once, just jumped to the talking part and skipped the unnecessary carnage along the way.

[Pettytyrant101]

this has got nothing to do with gender or race. its about victim mentality leaching onto the nearest 'cause' for its own selfish ends.- Figg

i think its the death throes of the old Abram religions, they were never going to go away quietly.

[Mrs Figg]

IS don't want to talk, they don't want debate either. there is no diplomacy in the world that would work.

[Pettytyrant101]

Not entirely- the front line cannon fodder they convince to commit atrocities and blow themselves up don't want to talk. But those behind the scenes do want stuff and they do have genuine grievances with the West going back over half a century of our foreign policy.
And ISIS itself doesn't even seem to consist of a single group so much a bunch of groups with overlapping aims- some are acting in support of Syrian uprisings, some for Palestinians, some out of hatred of the West ect and because they are humans self advancement, power and pure greed for some.

Getting some sort of advance in Israel/Palestine/Iran would be a very good start- we can make good use of Russia as an ally there as they have the influence in Iran and Syria we lack.
ISIS will not survive without state backing.
And Saudi also needs addressed- they are the source of most of these extreme religious Muslim groups and we treat them with kid-gloves.

And yes, just like after WW2 and Apartheid in SA and the terrorism of NI we will have to sit down and talk with people with blood on their hands.
Its the only way in the end, its always how war ends.