Roman History - ancient history


FiveParadox
#61
In a Republican form of Government, one must keep in mind that notwithstanding a loss of confidence of the elected representatives (or by proxy, the people), the President (or whatever other style of Head of Government one would choose) cannot be removed.

Our Westminster-style system assumes, as jimmoyer mentioned, that the governing party is "in trouble." Other than the Parliament approaching its expiration (by the way, a Parilament has never in the history of Canada expired), the Government would obviously only dissolve the House, destroying its own Order Paper, if it were to have very valid rasons.
 
I think not
#62
The biggest flaws in the Parliamentary system is almost the total lack of checks and balances in my opinion.
 
jimmoyer
#63
Every system does have its pros and cons.

And the very SEEMING lack of checks and balances
in the parliamentary system can also be its greatest
strength as it allows the ruling government to
actually get its programs through without the trial
of GRID LOCK, a salient feature of the American
system.

Some of us prefer grid lock. Some of us prefer
government to do less.

And so in the American system, it does take
the power of an emotional groundswell to overpower
all of the built in checks and balances between
opposition parties and between all 3 branches
of the executive, legislative and judicial.
 
I think not
#64
Yes, all systems has its flaws. But my point on checks on balances basically referred to preventing the concentration of power within a single branch of government. The PM in Canada, is basically all powerful. Even if they pass a law and the Supreme Court strikes it down as being unconstituional, they can invoke the notwithstanding clause and reverse everything. That's way too much power in the hands of one branch for my tastes.
 
jimmoyer
#65
Agreed ITN.

I was thinking that one overall check occurs in
all nations as an average.

It's the dominant culture.

If you notice, a lot of debate about any issue
is very virulent on left and right philosophies, but
often the end result is only a nibbling of splitting
the difference ?

In Canada, the Liberals propose a 1 percent tax cut
and the Conservates propose a cut in the sales tax
(their GST goods and services tax).

Overall the differences are not revolutionary.

You rarely see any revolutionary changes, like the
IRS being dismantled or that the entire governmental
budget is reduced by 50 percent.

Or likewise the reverse. It's all incremental
only becoming larger in one direction through the
years.
 
Finder
#66
Paradox... Canadian, Westminster system is a republican government, so your argument is somewhat flawed there to start. But a term limit on the office of PM would be easy to enforce.

Not saying I'd support such an extreme but MP's could have term limits. Not the parties of course. Why do we need careerist burocrats? Shouldn't government be made up of all sorts of Canadians not just government lifers?

Paradox you are a Tory in the old sence of the world.

You would have been happy living 200-500 years ago in the time of tyrants and kings. Perhaps you could have been one of the less then 100,000 electors in the westminster system

(damnit work bites gotta go)
 
Blackleaf
#67
Quote:

They act appaulingly and live off their inheritance and handouts, expecting the rest of the simple folk to call them by their honorary titles, bow to them ,etc. Puh-leaze.

A Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of governance in the world. Your Head of State represents a political party, and so is biased, whereas Britain's Head of State represents the PEOPLE and has no affiliation with any political party.

Also, republics that have a Prime Minister as well as a President usually experience problems when they both argue with each other as to how the country's run e.g. France and Republic of Ireland.

Of the 20 or so countries in the world that can truly be called democracies, about 15 of them are Constitutional Monarchies.

Republics are often much more corrupt than Constitutional Monarchies - the US, France and Germany have higher levels of corruption than countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
 
I think not
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

A Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of governance in the world. Your Head of State represents a political party, and so is biased, whereas Britain's Head of State represents the PEOPLE and has no affiliation with any political party.

Also, republics that have a Prime Minister as well as a President usually experience problems when they both argue with each other as to how the country's run e.g. France and Republic of Ireland.

Of the 20 or so countries in the world that can truly be called democracies, about 15 of them are Constitutional Monarchies.

Republics are often much more corrupt than Constitutional Monarchies - the US, France and Germany have higher levels of corruption than countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Correction, Constitutional Monarchies imply the Monarch is somehow superior by virtue of ?????? . Hence, it is inherently undemocratic. A "lack of bias" doesn't give anyone the right to govern indefinately.
 
FiveParadox
#69
But I think not, the Sovereign does not rule; rather, she reigns. It provides a last-ditch back-up to protect our democracy if it were to somehow be compromised; the duty of the Her Majesty, and in turn Her Excellency the Rt. Hon. Michaëlle Jean, is to ensure that the nation always has a Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.
 
Blackleaf
#70
Quote:

Correction, Constitutional Monarchies imply the Monarch is somehow superior by virtue of ?????? . Hence, it is inherently undemocratic. A "lack of bias" doesn't give anyone the right to govern indefinately.

I think you're getting confused with Absolute Monarchies, whereas Britain and Canada are Constitutional Monarchies.

130 years before France got rid of its Absolute Monarchy, England got rid of its Absolute Monarchy. Whereas France replaced it with a Republic, we replaced ours with a Constitutional Monarchy after ten years of being a Republic. Our Monarch nowadays has almost no power, unlike all our monarchs up until Charles I.
 
Blackleaf
#71
Constitutional monarchy

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges a hereditary or elected monarch as head of state. Modern constitutional monarchies usually implement the concept of trias politica, and have the monarch as the head of the executive branch. Where a monarch holds absolute power, it is known as an absolute monarchy.

Today, constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents theories of sovereignty which place sovereignty in the hands of the people, and those that see a role for tradition in the theory of government.


Though the king or queen may be regarded as the head of state, it is the Prime Minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, who actually governs the country.

Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies, this has not always historically been the case. There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy, Japan and Spain, or those in which the government is run as a military dictatorship, as was the case in Thailand.

Some constitutional monarchies are hereditary; others, such as that of Malaysia are elective monarchies.

Present constitutional monarchies

Some constitutional monarchies are:

Antigua and Barbuda (Queen Elizabeth II)
Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)
The Bahamas (Queen Elizabeth II)
Barbados (Queen Elizabeth II)
Belgium (King Albert II)
Belize (Queen Elizabeth II)
Bhutan (King Jigme Singye Wangchuk)
Cambodia (King Norodom Sihamoni)
Canada (Queen Elizabeth II)
Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)
Grenada (Queen Elizabeth II)
Jamaica (Queen Elizabeth II)
Japan (Emperor Akihito)
Liechtenstein (Prince Hans-Adam II)
Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)
Malaysia (Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin)
Monaco (Prince Albert)
The Netherlands (Queen Beatrix)
New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)
Norway (King Harald V)
Nepal (King Gyanendra Shaha)
Papua New Guinea (Queen Elizabeth II)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (Queen Elizabeth II)
Saint Lucia (Queen Elizabeth II)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (Queen Elizabeth II)
The Solomon Islands (Queen Elizabeth II)
Spain (King Juan Carlos)
Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)
Thailand (King Bhumibol Adulyadej)
Tuvalu (Queen Elizabeth II)
The United Kingdom (Queen Elizabeth II)

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen rules with LIMITS to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament). A constitutional monarchy was able to form in England because there was a lack of strong leadership. Abuse of power by the king caused the English to question the “divine right” of the king. Also strong nobles and members of Parliament started to oppose the king’s authority. Parliament subsequently took several steps to limit the power of the king. First, they forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Right that says the king must go through Parliament to enact new laws, taxes, etc. After signing the Petition of Right, Charles I immediately ignored it. This caused much anger from Parliament, so they had him beheaded for treason during the ensuing Civil War. This sent a message to future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power. During Charles II reign Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus. The Habeas Corpus said that any prisoner taken by the king would be given a trial. This prevented the king from simply removing his enemies by sending them to jail. When James II took the throne many people did not appreciate it when he flaunted his Catholicism. Therefore Parliament flexed its muscles once again by asking William of Orange to overthrow the king. William and his wife Mary came from the Netherlands and overthrew James II without bloodshed. This was called the “Glorious Revolution”. Once William and Mary had gained control of the throne, they completely supported the constitutional monarchy. Together they signed the Bill of Rights, which severely limited the power of the king, and gave more freedom to his subjects. One supporter of constitutional monarchy was John Locke. He wrote in his “Treatises on Government” that a direct democracy is the best form of government. He wrote that people are able to improve and rule themselves, and that people have three main rights. These rights are life, liberty, and property, and it is the government’s job to protect these rights. He also wrote that if the government is unjust the people have the right to overthrow it.

A Constitutional monarchy is most often the best form of government because the added security from taking the power out of one man’s hands is worth the delay in any lawmaking processes. These governments have left lasting affects. Absolutism has drained national treasuries and started religious hostilities, and the Constitutional monarchy of England laid the groundwork for the current government of the United States of America.

reference.com
 
I think not
#72
That's all fine Blackleaf, now explain to me why someone with "blue blood" gets to live off its citizens. What makes this blue blooded person so special?
 
FiveParadox
#73
I think not, just to be clear, Canada does not "pay" Her Majesty. She in no way lives off of Canada or its people.

You may have seen certain piece of legislation tabled in the House of Commons entitled An Act to grant certain sums of money to Her Majesty; despite the name, such legislative measures add the revenue of the Government of Canada to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Since executive power is vested in Her Majesty, if we were to discontinue appropriated funds in her name, then such funds would not, constitutionally, be available to use to pay for the public works of the Government of Canada.
 
I think not
#74
I know Canada doesn't pay for the Queen, I was referring to the UK and other countries that do. I just don't understand it, do you?
 
FiveParadox
#75
One must keep in mind that the Government of the United Kingdom would likely fund the Queen with the funds that we would appropriate toward the Governor General; although, I suppose Her Majesty's expenses would be a bit more ... "lavish," eh?
 
I think not
#76
Queen Elizabeth is very wealthy, with a net worth in 2004 – according to Forbes magazine – of $818 million. This is the result of a nest egg put aside for her by her father during his reign as king. Other estimates put her personal fortune at $4.4 billion ($16 billion if you include the Royal Collection, which includes the crown jewels).

Link
 
Martin Le Acadien
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

But I think not, the Sovereign does not rule; rather, she reigns. It provides a last-ditch back-up to protect our democracy if it were to somehow be compromised; the duty of the Her Majesty, and in turn Her Excellency the Rt. Hon. Michaëlle Jean, is to ensure that the nation always has a Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

The main difference between constitutional Monarchs and Elected heads of State is that their terms are different, A set term defines how long the President of the US or Mexico will stay in office (*yrs in US-2 4 year terms, 6 years in Mexico-1 term).

The House of Representatives in the US is elected fro only a 2 year term with the whole house standing for election in Nov 2006, however the Senate of the US has a six year term staggard in 2 year increments with only 1/3 of the Senate facing the polls every two years. The US senate until 1913 was appointed by the State Legislatures.

Canada's elections sometimes run over our two year limit, so the US has a built in vote of no-confidnece in the system.
 
Finder
#78
Every monarchy and every head of state in a monarch or constitutional monarchy runs different. Some stronger then others. In our day of enlightenment, rather Liberal Democracies/Social democracies, the head of state ie, the Governor General or the Queen pretty much stay low and make there power almost absolutely ceremonial, and mask there relevance in illusion tory's and monarchists call tradition. In fact this illusion merely covers up there irrelevance in todays modern democratic states. However! they retaine the power, or at least the ability to one day use the power of head of state. Even though nerffed the head of state can influance and sway power what he/she choses to use it.

The British monarchy and Lords were some of the first to shed there power in Europe. For a long time they saw how Nobles and Monarchs controled vast empirers at there own whim, while the parliment/assemblies were only on there whim. However by shedding there power to the house of lords and the commons and then totally to the commons, they were able to retain themselves by appearing more of a tradition of culture, powerless, figure heads. While lords and Monarchs were lossing there heads all across Europe the British nobility and monarchy was able to survive to this day way past the times they were made for. Creating a problem in these states who still use the Westminster form of government...

The problem being that there are few relevant checks and balances in the westminster form of government. The head of state, and the house of lords are nerffed by the fact they are seen as undemocratic, irrelevant and mostly there for traditional sacks and "second sober looks". Thus the commons often has a strangle hold on power, a democratic deficit which is employeed purely in the house of commons being the only legit government body elected by the people, or elected at all. It takes very little study in history to see what happens. Read Plato, John Locke, almost any of the Deism philophers of the enlightenment and the classical tests based on the Roman System. This rule by the commons thus turns into an extreme form of democracy... more or less mob rule... Controled only by FPTP. But truly no checks and balances. Was the system always like this?

The system was moduled losely after the roman empire/republic. Each body checking the power of the other. Though orginally the commons was called to really help collect taxes but the mdule developed into a working body of checks and balances which worked alright for it's time when royal and noble authority was legit.

Easyist way to fix these problems in the westminster system is pretty easy.

1. Form a Republic on the Roman/American lines with checks and banaces.
2. Keep the parlimentary system but reform it to look more like france with an elected head of state. With the elected head of state, the person can share the official title with that of the monarch. The monarch can be the traditional aspect and keep "tradition" going if tory's and traditional lists really want to spend the money on someone just lucky to be born between the right sheets, which brings up racist/classist problems in society. (classical referance.. the fact that Rome had two conculs during and after the republic.)

3. House of Lords- Elect senators to the house of lords and slowly replace those of noble birth. Allow those of "noble birth" to keep title's in there names if Tory's and traditionalists do not wish for change.
 
jimmoyer
#79
Very much agree.

And would like to specificly add that each province
should have equal representation in the upper house,
the Senate.
 
no new posts