621–630 of 693 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think a constitution has to be written? Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down? North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?
Why did you write this comment instead of yelling it out of your window?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth noting that currently, most UK arrests over "offense-giving" (which are increasingly common) are done on behalf of precisely those grievance-based identity groups which anti-monarchists support.
Huh? What does republicanism have to do with identity politics?
The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's been much speaking in awed tones at the pace of the various proclamations, committee meetings, document signings, etc, as if this pace tells us why we should be impressed. Personally I've found it borderline sickening. If there was a curtain that could have slip…
It’s really not that bizarre, not conspiratorial, and not “public passivity and capitulation”. The government has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries, this has happened dozens of times before (with more & less bloodshed), and is well known, expected, it is completely legal, and the operation was well publicized. You’re welcome to not like it, but acting incredulous shows how little you know about the UK.
Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachronism that serves as a reminder of the class system, and our places within it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The constant drumbeat in the news media of the royal family's dedication to "service". How is gorging on the public's teat while maintaining a $25 billion family "business" that is exempt from UK inheritance taxes in any way, shape or form consistent with liberal democracy?
Sovereign grant isn't "gorging on the public's teat" https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 it's pretty much plain inheritance. In fact even more restricted because much of the royal family holdings cannot be sold and must be passed down. Sure, it's a bloody violent history of kings and empires that got them there but the same could be said for much of the modern world. Is America going to hand back ALL land to Native…
Hmm. Charles will be paying zero inheritance tax on his multi-million inheritance.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold. You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matte…
What actually matters is that those breaking the constitution, be it written or not, can be held criminally liable. Can you be held criminally liable for breaking "a set of customs and principles" in the UK?
Not exactly. If there's enforcement, it will be done by other actors in the system will cooperate to enforce those "customs and principles." There's no appealing to some higher authority for enforcement (and especially not criminal law, which would be a lower authority).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold. You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matte…
The recent proroguement of parliament of parliament showed that doing things that are "unconstitutional" in the UK can be done with impunity as long as the tutting is ignored. A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what…
IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it.
If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Crown actually has legislative veto, approval and elective immunity via this intervention prior to the release of draft legislation prior to parliamentary debate: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
It's a fair point that obstructing draft legislation is a kind of de facto prohibiting of votes, even if crown consent does not enable stopping a vote directly. But in practice I don’t think consent could possibly be used this way without the tacit approval of the government (like with the prorogation of parliament case). I brought up parliamentary sovereignty above precisely because of this. If parliament is soverei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you can do that, but can you empower other people to do the same? You might kick one demon out of the house and get seven in return.
Contradictory biblical logic to the rescue. Guess I shouldn't expect anyone to avoiding resisting any demons, don't want to multiply them sevenfold! Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
How?
> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? I thought it was Obama who bowed to kings.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/bush-also-bowed-to-saudi-k... People made a lot more fuss about Obama because, you know, "Barack Hussein Obama", etc. Trump was seen doing it too.
But if those three did, then did earlier presidents, and they just weren't documented? Or weren't made a big deal of when they did?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you can do that, but can you empower other people to do the same? You might kick one demon out of the house and get seven in return.
Contradictory biblical logic to the rescue. Guess I shouldn't expect anyone to avoiding resisting any demons, don't want to multiply them sevenfold! Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.
You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.