How many people have you heard say that since you've been here? I've been struck by the number of uniformed people over here who seem to think that.
Because we have a Queen and the Queen's not elected, then apparantly 'its not a democracy, but a monarchy.....' - that is despite the fact that we just had an election to elect a prime minister. Granted the House of Lords isn't really elected either. But no-one really cares about them.
The people who I've heard say it seem to be right wing Christians more often than not. Maybe this crap is put out by Pat Robertson's program? ?
Yeah I've heard that a lot of times. I tell them the Queen/King has final say on any bill that's passed, but it's been a while or 10 since he/she last vetoed something passed by the Houses of Parliament. They seem quite relieved by that and change their thinking on the whole democracy thing.
Maybe it's that bipolar US attitude again:
[list]Winner or Loser (overtime or shootouts in every tied game)
They're both losers! (Homer after the 3-3 tie between Bart's and Lisa's teams in "Lisa on Ice"
A clear 2-party system in politics. You choose between Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, you choose between "shoot the queers" or "allow gay marriage".[/list:u]
So there is therefore either democracy or tyranny. Nothing in between.
I question the democracy in this country, especially this week where a controversial UN representative was put into place by a President who more and more chooses to go his own way.
In Britain, our Head of State knows her place. The same cannot be said for here.
In fact that is usually what I add to my explanation - that the Pres can do what he wants to, in effect.
but it's been a while or 10 since he/she last vetoed something passed by the Houses of Parliament.
Out of interest when was the last time the Queen vetoed anything?! 8)
I question the democracy in this country, especially this week where a controversial UN representative was put into place by a President who more and more chooses to go his own way.
In Britain, our Head of State knows her place. The same cannot be said for here.
While i may agree with you Mark that it doent sit well at the UN to be force feed a ambassador , the practice of *recess appoinments * is legal and has been used by presidents of BOTH parties for many years and niether party would move to end it as they might want to use its powers NEXT time they are in power .
It was greated to actually fill positions that accured during a recession but like everything else in our system it has been bastardised into a executive tool to counter senate opposition
It was used by eisenhower , Kennedy used it to put Thuragood Marshall on the bench , and Clinton put it to good use to appoint James Hormel ambassador to luxumburg to use a few examples .
A apointment by *recess* is only interum and Bolton wil have to leave the post by Jan 2007 unless reacted by congress .
Now you have another example of to much power TAKEN ( not given) by our govt and why citizens like me want to see its power CURTAILED
In fact that is usually what I add to my explanation - that the Pres can do what he wants to, in effect.
Exactly another example is the *pardons * granted by presidents when leaving office ..how many did clinton grant .. over 200 all party supporters i bet :smile:
="JohnA
Now you have another example of to much power TAKEN ( not given) by our govt and why citizens like me want to see its power CURTAILED
Such as declaring war, seeing 1800+military die and spend billions of $ in the process.
but it's been a while or 10 since he/she last vetoed something passed by the Houses of Parliament.
Out of interest when was the last time the Queen vetoed anything?! 8)
Queen Elizabeth hasn't.....the only time that the royal veto was used was by Victoria. It was on a bill that passed through bothe the Commons and the Lords, outlawing homosexuality. There was specific wording relating to both males and females, but Victoria vetoed the wording that related to women, because "British ladies would never dream of doing such a thing", and the bill therefore only applied to men when it became law.