tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post546943882616502691..comments2024-03-20T10:42:44.550+00:00Comments on ROMAN CHRISTENDOM: To those who think the Queen should become a revolutionary and overthrow the state...Tribunushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-70071529950368708282007-11-11T21:41:00.000+00:002007-11-11T21:41:00.000+00:00Dear Bunch of Hooey Yank,I like your “more monarch...Dear Bunch of Hooey Yank,<BR/><BR/>I like your “more monarchist than thou” tone.<BR/><BR/>Even if it is not right legally, it shews the right spirit. <BR/><BR/>Keep it up!<BR/><BR/>Sadly, however, the legal reality is rather different than the position of greater regal power that you and I might like to see.<BR/><BR/>The Queen has much less power than most republican presidents. She certainly has miles less power than America’s elected monarch, the US President.<BR/><BR/>We may be a Monarchy but we are also a modern democracy with all that such implies.<BR/><BR/>However, first up, you are completely wrong in your last statement and, indeed, I regret to say, completely anti-Catholic in so saying it (sorry, no offence meant; but I mean doctrinally).<BR/><BR/>St Paul teaches us that we may not do evil that good may come of it (Rom 3:8). Actually, good, rarely, if ever, comes from doing evil.<BR/><BR/>Revolution is evil. Even assuming that good were to come from it - even the good of preventing abortion (which is frankly unlikely anyway) – one may not do that evil in order to obtain that good. That is so, no matter that abortion is, as you say, such an execrable evil.<BR/><BR/>To say otherwise is, I am sorry to have to tell you, not only a “bunch of hooey” but gravely wrong and contrary to God’s law.<BR/><BR/>Now to your other points.<BR/><BR/>Let me deal with the second last point: what good is the Monarchy if the Queen can’t do any good?<BR/><BR/>Actually, the Queen can do a lot of good even if she cannot refuse legislation, save in a constitutional crisis.<BR/><BR/>If you think her retaining her throne is pointless if she cannot refuse legislation then your argument applies equally to a republican president since almost none of them can refuse legislation, either. Moreover, no amount of abdication or resignation by either Queen or president will rectify that situation. <BR/><BR/>We live in a democracy and the idea that the Queen or a republican president could either of them simply ignore the will of a democratically-elected Parliament is absurd and manifestly illegal and unconstitutional and, although you may not like that, it is not something that you can blame the Queen for.<BR/><BR/>That is not merely a peek of the lawyer’s wig. That is political and constitutional reality.<BR/><BR/>Your complaint is really against the state of modern politics and society as a whole and not merely the Queen. You cannot blame the Queen for modern politics and society.<BR/><BR/>Occasionally one has an opportunity to witness the ultimate absurdity which is to hear a democrat rail against the Queen for not refusing some legislation he dislikes, thus auto-demolishing his own democratic position.<BR/><BR/>I have seen it and it is wonderfully ridiculous: a democrat complaining that the Queen will not over-ride democracy in a wholly undemocratic way is one of the most absurd of things.<BR/><BR/>However, I am reasonably confident, Orestes, that, Yank tho’ you are, you do not fall into that wonderfully absurd camp of self-contradictory illogicality.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, to your more technical legal questions.<BR/><BR/>Where there is no written constitution, as with the British Constitution, then convention defines constitutional bounds. These conventions are determined in a number of ways:<BR/><BR/>(1) By history;<BR/>(2) By the Parliament itself;<BR/>(3) By the courts;<BR/>(4) By the Crown and its ministers;<BR/>(5) By practical reality;<BR/>(6) And – since 1948 when we joined the Council of Europe and since 1972 when we joined the EU – by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.<BR/><BR/>In our Constitution it is said (not least by the Courts) that the UK Parliament is sovereign and none can gainsay it.<BR/><BR/>Law students are still taught (tongue in cheek) that Parliament could, for instance, make it illegal for Frenchmen to smoke in the streets of Paris. That, of course, would never happen (for practical reasons if no other!) but it illustrates the point.<BR/><BR/>Actually, these days we must face the fact that the more power is alienated or “pooled” in Europe the greater the likelihood that it will be practically impossible to get it back and so, to that extent, it undermines the constitutional convention that Parliament is sovereign.<BR/><BR/>However, for the time being, at any rate, the most potent forces determining what are the constitutional conventions, and what the limits of the Constitution, are the courts and Parliament itself.<BR/><BR/>One such convention is the so-called “Salisbury Convention”. It is purely parliamentary. It is a self-denying convention by which the House of Lords declines to allow itself to challenge or vote against any government proposal specifically set out in a General Election manifesto when that government has been voted in by the electorate.<BR/><BR/>Ministerial responsibility or individual ministerial responsibility is another constitutional convention in governments using the Westminster System. <BR/><BR/>Other Conventions revolve around the Common Law and have been established by the operation of the Common Law principles of statutory interpretation.<BR/><BR/>For instance, as I had occasion to advise during the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, their Lordships could have, if they had wished, refused the Bill since it was never referred to in any election manifesto.<BR/><BR/>But, alas, modern governments ride roughshod over constitutional conventions which, in turn, makes a mockery of having an unwritten constitution.<BR/><BR/>The courts do not necessarily police this. Both the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ruled in favour of passing the Hunting Act 2004 by a simple vote in the Commons and the use of the Parliament Acts to by-pass the Lords. Whether they would have done the same for the House of Lords Act 1999 is not certain but, I suggest, likely.<BR/><BR/>To read the case go to:<BR/><BR/>http://www.bailii.org/<BR/><BR/>And then search for:<BR/><BR/>Jackson and others (Appellants) v. Her Majesty's Attorney General (Respondent)<BR/>[2005] UKHL 56.<BR/><BR/>There you will get a flavour of how the courts treat and determine the extent of constitutional conventions.<BR/><BR/>There you will also see how the courts are quite willing to set aside the traditional rights of the House of Lords as legislature.<BR/><BR/>The Royal Assent is a more serious matter but there is no real question but that the refusal of royal assent would be similarly treated by the Executive and by the courts.<BR/><BR/>The power to refuse Royal Assent was last exercised in 1708, when Queen Anne refused her assent to a bill for settling the Militia in Scotland. <BR/><BR/>The Convention now, however, according to Erskine-May, the “Bible” on Parliamentary procedure, and almost certain to be upheld by the courts, is that the Queen will not depart from the advice of her ministers save in the rarest and most extreme circumstances, the examples being given of an irresolvable parliamentary deadlock or the attempt by a government to act outside powers or, perhaps, to extend the life of Parliament indefinitely.<BR/><BR/>This last may now be doubtful given the Jackson decision above. Could the Executive abolish elections by the simple expedient of 2 Bills – one to amend the prohibition in s.2 of the Parliament Act 1911 and another to extend the life of a Parliament indefinitely? It is not clear.<BR/><BR/>But if it tried to do so most people would expect someone - if not the courts then the Queen - to act to prevent it.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that the fact that the definite limits are not entirely clear means that the Queen is even less likely to exercise her residual powers, particularly given the interaction of the powers of the EU Commission and its courts, save in extremis.<BR/><BR/>So – try as you might to blame Ramsey MacDonald – I am afraid the blame has to go very much wider than him!Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-49695231276898364442007-11-11T19:42:00.000+00:002007-11-11T19:42:00.000+00:00Dear Anonymous,Read my other mails and you will ge...Dear Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Read my other mails and you will get a sufficient answer to your question. I am well qualified and can stare down the qualifications of most others. But I prefer strength of argument to comparative degree ceremonies.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that I am not particularly well disposed to relay my life history to a correspondent who calls himself "Anonymous". Sorry about that but it I think that is only fair.<BR/><BR/>If you don't like my arguments then argue against them. You are likely to make more headway.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-16082818591734844562007-11-11T19:36:00.000+00:002007-11-11T19:36:00.000+00:00Dear Doctor Peter,In my view you are being commend...Dear Doctor Peter,<BR/><BR/>In my view you are being commendably traditional and old-fashioned and I entirely agree with you!<BR/><BR/>One only need read Simon Schama's excellent book "Citizens", about the murderous French Revolution, to be put off the infernal, bloody and revolutionary word "citizen" forever!<BR/><BR/>We are all subjects - ultimately subjects of Christ the King.<BR/><BR/>Unlike Satan, we are happy and proud to say "I SHALL serve". And in Christian Monarchy EVERYONE serves, even the Monarch, which is why the motto of the Prince of Wales is "Ich Dien" which is German for "I serve".<BR/><BR/>Prince Charles may have a lot of faults but he does at least make some effort to follow his motto.<BR/><BR/>In a godless republic everyone is a "citizen" and serves himself, a pretty succinct summary of Hell.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-21749197975765527362007-11-11T19:29:00.000+00:002007-11-11T19:29:00.000+00:00Salve Flavie!I may have misread him/her but I thin...Salve Flavie!<BR/><BR/>I may have misread him/her but I think Ottaviani agrees with me.<BR/><BR/>Either way, I know for certain that the Cardinal of that name agreed with me. No revolutionary he, by golly!Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-36487571294149234072007-11-11T19:27:00.000+00:002007-11-11T19:27:00.000+00:00Dear Tom,If you thought that then it wasn't your o...Dear Tom,<BR/><BR/>If you thought that then it wasn't your only mistake!<BR/><BR/>On this blog you're signing up to abolish immoral, godless, secular humanist republics not Christian Monarchy.<BR/><BR/>Even the weakest and weediest of Christian monarchies - like ours - is better than godless secularism.<BR/><BR/>If you haven't worked that one out yet then wake up and smell the coffee!<BR/><BR/>Welcome to reality, brother!Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-26374306664141773952007-11-10T16:57:00.000+00:002007-11-10T16:57:00.000+00:00Sorry, i thought i was signing up to abolish the c...Sorry, i thought i was signing up to abolish the crumbling immoral house of windsor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-40233164662679914422007-11-09T16:00:00.000+00:002007-11-09T16:00:00.000+00:00I agree with Ottaviano, and the call for the Queen...I agree with Ottaviano, and the call for the Queen to become a revolutionary. If anyone can do it, she can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-72175858458244172542007-11-08T18:28:00.000+00:002007-11-08T18:28:00.000+00:00I agree with Ottaviani. Thank you for posting abou...I agree with Ottaviani. Thank you for posting about this issue with such clarity. <BR/><BR/>I am proud to be a Catholic and I am proud to be a subject of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09272728729243811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-38110931442044056002007-11-08T17:53:00.000+00:002007-11-08T17:53:00.000+00:00Many thanks to Tribunus for another fascinating po...Many thanks to Tribunus for another fascinating post.<BR/><BR/>I have only recently read the previous post and comments.<BR/><BR/>I have always understood that in modern parliamentary times the Royal Assent marks the final passing into law of a Bill.<BR/><BR/>The Royal Assent in no way signifies the personal approval of the Queen of a particular law.<BR/><BR/>Rather it is the official recognition by the Crown that a Bill has successfully passed through the required procedures in both houses of Parliament.<BR/><BR/>It is not therefore for the Queen to withold her assent.<BR/><BR/>To do so would precipitate a constitutional crisis which (presumably) would involve her abdication with unforeseeable consequences.<BR/><BR/>In like manner, it is not for the Queen who acts on the advice of her ministers to withold her assent to Orders in Council.<BR/><BR/>Have I (more or less) understood correctly ?<BR/><BR/>I would in addition be most interested to hear Tribunus's opinion on the question of citizenship.<BR/><BR/>I think of myself not as a British "citizen", (nor as a "British national"), but as a British subject.<BR/><BR/>"Citizen" is not a word I associate with monarchy.<BR/><BR/>And we live in a monarchy.<BR/><BR/>Am I being old fashioned or plain wrong ?<BR/><BR/>(I would be pleased to hear I am the former.)<BR/><BR/>God save the Quuen.Dr. Peter H. Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13955402188119575105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-58319214537869173582007-11-08T16:53:00.000+00:002007-11-08T16:53:00.000+00:00When you say you are a lawyer and a theologian, wh...When you say you are a lawyer and a theologian, what do you mean? How well qualified are you and where did you study? There are plenty of bad lawyers and theologians out there, so just saying you are a lawyer and a theologian doesn't necessarily mean a lot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-40478188820681277062007-11-08T16:42:00.000+00:002007-11-08T16:42:00.000+00:00Pardon me, but your lawyer's wig is showing.What a...Pardon me, but your lawyer's wig is showing.<BR/><BR/>What a bunch of hooey (apologies for the colloquialism, I'm a Yank).<BR/><BR/>Where, pray, is the narrowing of these powers defined? What specific "convention" maintains that the monarch cannot refuse to assent to legislation she finds morally repellent? What law was passed, what event took place, when did it happen, other than in the editorial pages of The Guardian, that Victoria's prerogatives did not pass to her successors? Not only as a Catholic, but as a student of history, I'd dearly like to know. Personally, I think it was an idea cooked up by Ramsay MacDonald or some other of your red occupants of Downing Street during the last century.<BR/><BR/>When faced with such an atrocity as abortion, it is the Queen's moral duty to do everything she can to prevent it - up to and including abdication if that is her only option. <BR/><BR/>If Her Majesty is circumvented by the nature of her office from doing any good, then what good can her retaining the throne do? The slaughter of innocents is such an execrable evil that any action - even revolution - to prevent it is preferable to action, however involuntary, in this case signing legislation, which specifically allows that evil to occur.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-59688583725555139212007-11-07T21:32:00.000+00:002007-11-07T21:32:00.000+00:00Bravo!Bravo!Aduliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00534730218402742905noreply@blogger.com