tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post7206136647875780912..comments2024-03-20T10:42:44.550+00:00Comments on ROMAN CHRISTENDOM: No - the Queen did not have power to veto the Abortion Act 1967Tribunushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-62792574568440965842010-09-01T21:11:22.463+01:002010-09-01T21:11:22.463+01:00Fr. Francis, doesn't moral culpability require...Fr. Francis, doesn't moral culpability require a free and unconstrained act of the will? If Tribunus is right, and the law did require the Queen to sign the bill, is she acting freely and voluntarily? And does <i>her</i> conduct (as distinct from Parliament's) really give scandal here, if she is in fact legally constrained?Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-49639750914843309882010-09-01T21:03:44.229+01:002010-09-01T21:03:44.229+01:00Fr Francis,
Forgive me if I answer you more publi...Fr Francis,<br /><br />Forgive me if I answer you more publicly in a main post.<br /><br />Trib.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-90523827022007404752010-09-01T21:01:40.421+01:002010-09-01T21:01:40.421+01:00Dear Bah!
May I say that I am unimpressed by an a...Dear Bah!<br /><br />May I say that I am unimpressed by an argument that begins “bah!”.<br /><br />It proves nothing.<br /><br />The US president is indeed the one who nominates the Justice in the first place. He then sends the nomination to the Senate for confirmation - which it may refuse. But suppose the Senate confirms and then the candidate declares himself in support of something the President morally objects to? The President cannot then veto the appointment.<br /><br />Your mere, unsupported assertion that the Queen should have refused assent does not give her the power so to do.<br /><br />She does not have any constitutional power to refuse assent.<br /><br />If you think she has then you do not understand British Constitutional law.<br /><br />She does not have any “inherent power” of the sort you claim since that power does not now exist.<br /><br />Law certainly does forbid it. That law is determined by constitutional conventions or, if you prefer, constiutional customs.<br /><br />You are plainly ignorant of what St Thomas himself wrote about custom: <br /><br />“Custom hath the force of law, abolishes law and is the interpreter of law” wrote St Thomas (ST I- II, q. 97, a. 3).<br /><br />If the Queen had attempted to give herself power that she does not have i.e. veto over a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament (save in a constitutional crisis) then she would have acted illegally, immorally (by seizing power) and for no good purpose since Parliament and the courts would not have accepted her purported veto of the Bill.<br /><br />It would have been a futile gesture creating a pointless crisis.<br /><br />You are pontificating about a subject on which you plainly know very little.<br /><br />I therefore say to you:<br /><br />Bah!Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-22625800664317624952010-09-01T20:48:04.789+01:002010-09-01T20:48:04.789+01:00Dear Alexander,
Was not the British night carpet ...Dear Alexander,<br /><br />Was not the British night carpet bombing of German cities just as atrocious as the USAAF's atomic bombs?<br /><br />Yes, it was.<br /><br />How can that regardless be morally right?<br /><br />It can’t!Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-2680385515275590832010-09-01T20:44:46.838+01:002010-09-01T20:44:46.838+01:00Dear Ma Tucker,
The Queen doesn’t give her assent...Dear Ma Tucker,<br /><br />The Queen doesn’t give her assent to the Bill because her assent is not a real assent save in very rare constitutional crises. That is British constitutional law – something you plainly are not an expert in.<br /><br />She certainly does however reserve a veto in the case where there is a constitutional crisis involving a constitution that is unwritten. That is because our unwritten constitution is determined by constitutional conventions. Conventions are part of all constitutions, written or unwritten, but clearly less so for a written constitution.<br /><br />Since you are clearly not a constitutional lawyer – still less a British constitutional lawyer – it may be that you do not understand this.<br /><br />However, the British Constitution does not depend upon your inability to understand it.<br /><br />Moreover, the fact that a constitution is unwritten does not mean that it cannot develop a crisis. In fact, this has happened a number of times with the British Constitution e.g. the hung Parliament in 1974, when the Queen invited Harold Wilson to form a government; the Abdication crisis, to name but two.<br /><br />The Queen’s role is far from defunct in such situations and is certainly not “nothing at all”. In a crisis her position is vital to the preservation of stable parliamentary democracy.<br /><br />The Lisbon Treaty may well be more serious a challenge to the Constitution than Home Rule but you have to reckon with cases like R v Secretary of State For Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, Ex Parte Rees- Mogg (1993) and Blackburn v Attorney-General (1971) CA which indicate that such treaties can be agreed to, and can be later reversed, and are thus not unconstitutional.<br /><br />As to your questions:<br /><br />Parliament has no known power to unseat the Queen but that did not stop them doing so to King James II, nor the Americans doing so to King George III (at least in the American Colonies).<br /><br />Would they be compelled to do so if they had that power? <br /><br />Why compelled?<br /><br />Could they not charge her with treason and execute her? <br /><br />Treason against whom? Treason is an act against the Crown. It would be treason to execute her. Having said that, the two Houses of Parliament did so to King Charles I.<br /><br />The Queen's role is as powerful as it needs to be to safeguard parliamentary democracy which might, conceivably, be different than the will of the House of Commons e.g. if the Commons sought to abolish elections.<br /><br />More general human rights are (in theory) protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.<br /><br />As to the attempted execution of Adolf Hitler, if you had read my post fully, you would have seen that I do not consider his government legitimate after the Reichstag Fire Act and the Enabling Acts, both of which were unconstitutional seizures of power. From that time on Hitler’s government lacked legitimacy and a just war of restoration could have been prosecuted against him, provided the other criteria, like proper authority to declare war and proportionality, applied.<br /><br />Once he began to persecute Jews, a war became, in my opinion, proportionate and could have been declared by those genuinely representing the ousted Weimar Constitution e.g. illegally ousted Reichstag and Reichsrat members, illegally ousted public officials and cabinet ministers.<br /><br />If the only way to stop the usurper was assassination – as increasingly it became clear was the case – then it became legitimate to attempt it.<br /><br />These were the very discussions that Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators had before deciding to act. They were right to have them and to take them very seriously.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-17750136058494220042010-09-01T15:20:21.895+01:002010-09-01T15:20:21.895+01:00Ah, Tribunus! Glad to see you're back! I was...Ah, Tribunus! Glad to see you're back! I was hoping you'd surface soon!Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-30314862874100945382010-09-01T15:09:07.608+01:002010-09-01T15:09:07.608+01:00Anonymous:
Why should anyone quit for not exerci...Anonymous: <br /><br />Why should anyone quit for not exercising a power they do not have?<br /><br />There is as much likelihood of the Queen abdicating as there is of you using your brain cell.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-42117428457978561662010-09-01T15:07:43.118+01:002010-09-01T15:07:43.118+01:00Dear Matterhorn,
You ask: "...The most basic...Dear Matterhorn,<br /><br />You ask: "...The most basic purpose of any constitution, of law itself, is to protect the innocent, such as unborn children clearly are. Therefore, could not the abortion crisis be one of those rare occasions when something so fundamental is at stake that the monarch would be justified in withholding assent- to save the Constitution, the rule of law and the country itself... Surely the monarch has an obligation to take a stand against this?"<br /><br />If you could show that the Monarch had the power to do what you suggest then it follows, as night follows day, that she would be morally obliged to exercise it in a way that defends human life.<br /><br />However, she does not have that power.<br /><br />This is because the UK Constitution is governed by constitutional conventions and those conventions bind the Monarch as much as anyone - and binds them both legally and morally.<br /><br />One of those conventions is that the Queen may not veto a Bill that is not a technically constitutional Bill (as regarded by the English courts e.g. Laws LJ in the Sunderland case) and, moreover, one that falls into the very few extremely dire situations that may be called "Dicey's exception".<br /><br />The Queen is not empowered to extend the parameters of that convention. Only the courts and Parliament can do so.<br /><br />The proof that the Abortion Act is not such a Bill is that the Bill has become law and the British Constitution has not disappeared or fallen.<br /><br />We still have all the organs of state.<br /><br />It is really only if their very existence is threatened that the Queen might be empowered to stop it.<br /><br />It would be nice if the Queen had power to stop the Abortion Bill - but she doesn't.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-38307746531473396922010-09-01T14:54:26.814+01:002010-09-01T14:54:26.814+01:00Thanks Anita and Roger!Thanks Anita and Roger!Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-73909806611436045362010-09-01T14:53:49.025+01:002010-09-01T14:53:49.025+01:00Dear aaron and brighid,
I would be extremely surp...Dear aaron and brighid,<br /><br />I would be extremely surprised if the Queen was in any way in favour of abortion.Tribunushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330137792269530812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-69734192145554178552010-08-22T15:04:51.315+01:002010-08-22T15:04:51.315+01:00Maybe she didn't have the power to veto it, bu...Maybe she didn't have the power to veto it, but she could have still refused to sign, because signing it was a form of cooperation in grave evil, and a betrayal of the rights of her unborn subjects.<br /><br />If the Abortion Act would still have gone through without her signature, then she need not have signed. She could have explained that she was not trying to usurp any power which she did not enjoy constitutionally, but that she wasn't prepared to go against her own conscience. <br /><br />Her signature gave the impression that she supported this law. Any prosecutions under this law or its predecessors would have been in the form: Regina v. N. giving the impression that the Queen supported whatever law was in force.<br /><br />King Baudouin of the Belgians showed far more integrity when he resigned from the monarchy for a day, rather than play any part in an abominable law.<br /><br />I don't think your argument holds water. This was one case where a Christian monarch could have registered a protest. Maybe it wouldn't have made a lot of difference at the time, but it would be something forever remembered.<br /><br />""To veto" is not the same as "not to sign." You are equating the two. <br /><br />best wishes<br />Fr Francis Marsden<br />Chorley, LancsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-69841596923535872622010-08-15T21:43:41.392+01:002010-08-15T21:43:41.392+01:00Bah!
The US president is the one who nominates th...Bah!<br /><br />The US president is the one who nominates the Justice in the first place, and then sends the nomination to the Senate for confirmation - which it may refuse.<br /><br />The Queen SHOULD have refused her assent. She SHOULD have reasserted the inherent power of her position, which her predecessors clearly held, and has only lain dormant through disuse. NO LAW forbids her from doing so, only custom.<br /><br />The Queen SHOULD have refused her assent, and the lives of MILLIONS of innocent children would've been saved thereby.<br /><br />Bah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-80220401317018944842010-08-13T06:12:28.704+01:002010-08-13T06:12:28.704+01:00Sorry this is totally off topic -
but been readi...Sorry this is totally off topic - <br /><br />but been reading Catholic blogs on nuclear attacks on Japan, yours came up and you brought up points - maybe you addressed this but I missed it - and couldn't see an email to contact you so here's my post and question to you:<br /><br />Is not the British night carpet bombing of German cities just as atrocious as the USAAF's atomic bombs? (their fire bombing of Toyko actually killed more than both atomic bombs combined btw)Especially considering how RAF would just target cities in general not even bothering to aim at strategic sites. Look at the firestorms of Dresden and Hamburg. Technology lacking is the argument brought up in defence of the practice, how can that regardless be morally right?Sybokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03841768414163141106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-9498467273662751962010-08-09T16:13:20.710+01:002010-08-09T16:13:20.710+01:00So the Queen must given her assent to a bill that ...So the Queen must given her assent to a bill that permits the slaughter of her own subjects. She does however reserve a veto in the case where there is a constitutional crisis involving a constitution that is unwritten in the first place. I do not understand. How can you determine whether a situation constitutes a constitutional crisis when the constitution itself is unwritten? Reading your post I get the impression that the queen's role is defunct. It has been reduced to nothing at all. Did the labour government consider whether signing the Lisbon Treaty would represent a threat to the unwritten constitution? Did the queen? It would seem to me that home rule would be rather less serious than the Lisbon treaty in this regard. <br /><br />Other issues I would like to know<br />Had she refused to give her assent would the parliament have the power to unseat her? Would they be compelled to do so if they had that power? Could they not charge her with treason and execute her? I know very little about your parliamentary system but from what you've written it seems to me that the queen's role is as powerful as it needs be to safeguard the will of the parliament regardless of whether that parliament safeguards the will or indeed more importantly the life of the people over whom that parliament governs. <br /><br />Also, I have read other posts from you Tribunus. In particular the attempted execution of Adolf Hitler. Did Hitler's government not represent legitimate authority? Was it an act of revolution to attempt his assassination?Ma Tuckernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-29133837676090356142010-08-04T20:02:37.668+01:002010-08-04T20:02:37.668+01:00She could have abdicated.She could have abdicated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-72773756219480241122010-08-03T04:46:46.412+01:002010-08-03T04:46:46.412+01:00Dear Sir,
This is clearly a difficult dilemma, bu...Dear Sir,<br /><br />This is clearly a difficult dilemma, but couldn't one make this argument: that the most basic purpose of any constitution, of law itself, is to protect the innocent, such as unborn children clearly are. Therefore, could not the abortion crisis be one of those rare occasions when something so fundamental is at stake that the monarch would be justified in withholding assent- to save the Constitution, the rule of law and the country itself? When we start allowing mothers to murder their children, where will it end? If even a child cannot trust a mother, what is to prevent the rest of society, the whole political community, from unraveling? Surely the monarch has an obligation to take a stand against this?Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230268418171628594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-91389858421775138422010-08-02T17:09:28.638+01:002010-08-02T17:09:28.638+01:00I regret that in very demanding circumstances, tha...I regret that in very demanding circumstances, that I am not finding time to give this very meaningful rich and intelligent blog the attention it most certainly deserves.<br /><br />I will rectify when I can ...Roger Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10722568291805894518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-84961544508359850202010-08-01T04:28:12.808+01:002010-08-01T04:28:12.808+01:00Very lucid explanation of the limits on the Queen&...Very lucid explanation of the limits on the Queen's power. However, the analogy to the President of the United States refusing to install a Supreme Court justice upon Senate confirmation is not an entirely happy one, since it is the President himself who nominates the candidate for the Court, and the President can always withdraw the nomination, at least up to the point the nominee is confirmed. If he doesn't withdraw the nomination, it wouldn't make sense for the President to try and stop the nominee from taking his seat on the Court once confirmed. <br /><br />It's tough to draw parallels between the Prez and the Queen, because, while both are heads of state, the Prez is also the head of the Government and wields powers the Queen does not have (unfortunately for us, in the case of the present occupant of the Oval Office). I guess possible American examples of what you're talking about would be the refusal of a secretary of state (that is, of one of the 50 States) to certify the results of an election in order to keep a duly elected candidate from taking office, or the refusal of the Chief Justice of the United States to swear in as President the candidate who won the greatest number of votes in the Electoral College (as opposed to the popular vote).Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1062692702190792942.post-34102421221133282712010-07-31T23:44:14.381+01:002010-07-31T23:44:14.381+01:00Is there any idea what the Queen believes personal...Is there any idea what the Queen believes personally about abortion? I'd like to think she's not in favour of it, but I'm afraid that could be wishful thinking!Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.com