Congratulations Your Majesty

[Rick]

Piss on the "Partisan" they ARE political figures and they ARE full of taint...

[Scooter]

So what political positions have they advanced? I'm sure you have examples at the tips of your fingers to share.

[Andrew D]

Monarchies whose armed forces and police and other publc servants owe their allegiance to the state, in the person of the monarch, and not to the puny partisan interests of the government of the day.

In the US, all federal and State legislative, executive, and judicial officers swear (or affirm) allegiance to the Constitution, not to "the puny partisan interests of the government of the day."

And unlike the UK, we have a written Constitution which sets forth that requirement.

And all military personnel of the US likewise swear (or affirm) that they will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same". And every naturalized immigrant also swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

If you really believe that in the US, "armed forces and police and other publc servants owe their allegiance ... to the puny partisan interests of the government of the day," then you know less about the US than I know about Canada.

[Gob]

"No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

[Andrew D]

Gee, a puppet doesn't involve herself in partisan politics.

As even the UK Parliament acknowledges, she says whatever she is instructed to say:

The State Opening of Parliament marks the beginning of the parliamentary session. Its main purpose is for the monarch formally to open Parliament and, in the Queen's Speech, deliver an outline of the Government's proposed policies, legislation for the coming session and a review of the last session.

* * *

The Queen's Speech is delivered by the Queen from the Throne in the House of Lords, in the presence of Members of both Houses.

Although the Queen reads the Speech, the content is entirely drawn up by the Government and approved by the Cabinet. It contains an outline of the Government's policies and proposed new legislation for the new parliamentary session.

(Emphasis added.)

"Free of any political taint"?

Well, if "free of any political taint" means "marionette dancing on the strings of whatever political party happens to be in power," then I guess so.

[Scooter]

In the US, all federal and State legislative, executive, and judicial officers swear (or affirm) allegiance to the Constitution, not to "the puny partisan interests of the government of the day."

And unlike the UK, we have a written Constitution which sets forth that requirement.

And all military personnel of the US likewise swear (or affirm) that they will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same". And every naturalized immigrant also swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

That that exalted Constitution says that the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is the partisan political hack of the week. So I stand behind my characterization.

And your Constitution gives you no more of a right to vote for that Head of State and Commander-in-Chief than my Constitution grants to me.

And the notion that the UK (not my country btw, which does have a codified constitution) does not have a written constitution is a fiction; there are many written documents that are considered to be constitutional in nature (not the least of which is that Bill of Rights to which I referred and to which your own owes a huge debt).

[Andrew D]

"No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

Exactly. The majority can do whatever it wants, and the oppressed minority can no nothing -- short of insurrection -- about it.

And that system is enviable?

Oh, wait. More than four centuries ago, Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, wrote in Dr. Bonham's Case (1610) that

the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.

(8 Co. Rep. 107a, 113b, 118a, 77 Eng. Rep. 638, 646, 652 (1610).)

Ah, there we go. An Act of Parliament cannot be "unconstitutional". It can just be "void".

Glad we got that all cleared up.

[Rick]

So what political positions have they advanced? I'm sure you have examples at the tips of your fingers to share.

You only think the UK has a monarchy?

There's Spain, Monaco, does Italy still have a remnant?

However I digress, as has already been pointed out even though the Crown of the UK may be ceremonial they advance any political position they are told to.

Even though "advanced" was not part of the original question.

As for "taint" where ya been?

[Andrew D]

That that exalted Constitution says that the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is the partisan political hack of the week. So I stand behind my characterization.

Members of the armed forces take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to support and defend the Commander-in-Chief.

You may recall that when Congress drove the President (Richard Nixon) out of office, the military did not lift a finger to protect him. And when Congress tried to drive other Presidents -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- out of office, the military did not lift a finger to protect them either.

In every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes -- which include the US, the UK, Canada, and a whole bunch of other places -- whoever is Commander-in-Chief (or whatever her or his title may happen to be) holds that position by virtue of politics.

How is that not better than the available alternatives?

[Scooter]

Yes, I am aware of all of those monarchies, which is why I referred to "any Commonwealth realm, or the monarchies of western and northern Europe.

And since you don't like "advanced", I'll rephrase to ask for examples of anything that a monarch in any of those countries has done that is remotely "political".

And I said "political taint". Generally all the words that are used mean something, and purposely omitting some of them will change the meaning of what was said.

And even so, I am unaware of "taint" of any sort that has attached to any of those monarchs personally. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Scooter]

Members of the armed forces take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to support and defend the Commander-in-Chief.

And yet their orders emanate from him/her, regardless.

You may recall that when Congress drove the President (Richard Nixon) out of office, the military did not lift a finger to protect him. And when Congress tried to drive other Presidents -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- out of office, the military did not lift a finger to protect them either.

Neither did any of those presidents issue any orders to do so. What may have happened, if any of them had, is anyone's guess.

In every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes -- which include the US, the UK, Canada, and a whole bunch of other places -- whoever is Commander-in-Chief (or whatever her or his title may happen to be) holds that position by virtue of politics.

Untrue. Monarchs who are commanders-in-chief of their countries' armed forces do not assume that position by any political process.

[Gob]

Well, if "free of any political taint" means "marionette dancing on the strings of whatever political party happens to be in power," then I guess so.

Ah, a common error, the Queen's speech is an announcement of the business of the current government, by the reigning monarch.

[Andrew D]

In every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes -- which include the US, the UK, Canada, and a whole bunch of other places -- whoever is Commander-in-Chief (or whatever her or his title may happen to be) holds that position by virtue of politics.

Untrue. Monarchs who are commanders-in-chief of their countries' armed forces do not assume that position by any political process.

I was referring (as the posting from which the quotation is taken makes abundantly clear) to the person who has the ultimate actual operational command authority over the military forces. In which countries do the monarchs possess that authority?

In the US, the operation against bin Laden was kicked all the way upstairs, so it eventually required the approval of President Obama. Are you saying that such an operation by the UK, had it been kicked all the way upstairs, would eventually have required the approval of Elizabeth II?

[Lord Jim]

"No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

If that is the guiding principle, then frankly, your "Constitution" doesn't sound very "constitutional"....

And if you have a "Bill Of Rights" it either must not include things like the right to freedom of speech or the press, or the protections must be very weak...(otherwise you wouldn't have people tossed in the klink for "crimes" like "stirring up hatred")

It appears that though the British use the word "Constitution" to describe something, they are talking about something that is entirely different both in form and legal significance to the US Constitution:

Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.

Historically, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... ed_Kingdom

It looks to me like what they're doing is taking the whole body of the country's case law (and a bunch of other things) throwing it all into one pot and calling it, a "Constitution"....

Which isn't particularly important anyway, since any law Parliament passes is automatically "Constitutional"...

You have a Bill of Rights that was in large part copied word for word from the British one.

Well, not entirely, since some portions of it, like The Third Amendment:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

were adopted specifically to prevent the types of actions taken by The Crown during the time we were a collection of colonies....

That having been said, the answer to this question:

Do you imagine that you would have cultivated the same concept of liberty if your part of the Americas had originally been colonized by Russians or Spaniards of that era?

is certainly not. In terms of civil liberties and individual rights, Great Britain was probably the most advanced country of its time. Indeed, the fact that the colonists did not enjoy the same rights and protections afforded to those living in England was one of the main causes of The Revolution.

We were fortunate to have the British common law and legal forms as a model to work from...

And then we improved on it.

[Scooter]

I was referring (as the posting from which the quotation is taken makes abundantly clear) to the person who has the ultimate actual operational command authority over the military forces.

You said:

In every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes -- which include the US, the UK, Canada, and a whole bunch of other places -- whoever is Commander-in-Chief (or whatever her or his title may happen to be) holds that position by virtue of politics.

which is demonstrably false. "Commander-in-Chief" is at title that, in many monarchies, is ascribed to the monarch him/herself, and thus is not held "by virtue of politics."

If you are now admitting that you were in error and meant to say something different from what you wrote...

[Andrew D]

Ah, a common error, the Queen's speech is an announcement of the business of the current government, by the reigning monarch.

Well, Gob, according to Parliament, it also includes "an outline of the Government's policies and proposed new legislation".

And Queen's speeches are loaded with partisan content: "Legislation will be brought forward to restore freedoms and civil liberties, through the abolition of Identity Cards ...."

And more from the Queen's speech of 25 May 2010:

Action will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the structural budget deficit. ... People will be supported into work with sanctions for those who refuse available jobs ....

My Government will limit the number of non-European Union economic migrants entering the United Kingdom and end the detention of children for immigration purposes. ...

Legislation will be introduced to enable more schools to achieve academy status, give teachers greater freedom over the curriculum and allow new providers to run state schools.

* * *

A Bill will be introduced to devolve greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods and give local communities control over housing and planning decisions. Legislation will be introduced to stop uncompleted plans to create unitary councils.

* * *

In the Middle East, my Government will continue to work for a two-state solution that sees a viable Palestinian state existing in peace and security alongside Israel.

* * *

My Government is committed to spend nought point seven per cent of gross national income in development aid from 2013.

Does QEII actually support abolition of identity cards? Accelerating the reduction of the structural budget deficit? Limiting the number of non-European economic migrants entering the UK? A two-state solution for Palestine and Israel?

Who knows? What difference would it make anyway?

If the next government wants to keep identity cards or opposes a limit on non-European economic migrants or opposes a two-state solution or ....

Guess what: The Queen will read out the next government's proposed policies in the same manner as she read out the last one's.

And what she thinks about any of those policies won't matter at all.

[Gob]

No, she reads speech prepared by the government of the day, as is traditional. There is nothing "partisan" nor "puppet" in her doing this. Which part of that do you not understand?

[Gob]

"No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea."

If that is the guiding principle, then frankly, your "Constitution" doesn't sound very "constitutional"....

It's not a constitution, only Yanks are hung up on a "constitution". It's what serves the UK as a "constitution, and has done so since before the USA was thought of.

[Andrew D]

Did you miss the "civilian authority" part, Scooter? I admit, I posted it only twice in a single sentence:

In every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes -- which include the US, the UK, Canada, and a whole bunch of other places -- whoever is Commander-in-Chief (or whatever her or his title may happen to be) holds that position by virtue of politics.

(Emphases added.)

When I referred to the "civilian authority," I meant the civilian authority. I did not mean the civilian figurehead who has no actual authority.

You can quibble about "Commander-in-Chief" or "Generalissimo" or "Grand Poobah" or whatever you want to quibble about.

But the fact remains that in every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the]civilian authority is the product of political processes, whoever has actual operational command of the military forces has that power by virtue of politics.

[Scooter]

And what she thinks about any of those policies won't matter at all.

No, it won't, except to the Prime Minister whom it is her duty to advise, to counsel and to warn, because no one else will ever hear it.

And you would be mistaken if you thought that such advice was ignored by those receiving it. More than one PM, of more than one of her realms, has been put in his/her place by Her Majesty, not the least among whom was Churchill.