Interesting colonial map - I never knew the extent of French territiory in North America (c. 1750)

[kallipolis]

No, it isn't -- for that, look to Bannockburn and the Scots.

What does the battle of Bannockburn have to do with The Magna Carta?

The Scots, and the English are still fighting one another...avoid attending a football game between the two countries.

 

[kallipolis]

Really, the Bannockburn Declaration* is more inspiration for the Constitution than is the Great Charter: it rests sovereignty in the people and suggests a balance of powers within government.




*Declaration of Arbroath

You may well be correct but its significance pales (lost in the sands of time) in comparison with The Magna Carta, a much more influential document.

 

[kallipolis]

The Irish influence on the culture and politics of New York, and the United States, is enormous. Indeed, many of the New Deal reforms came out of New York and the Irish dominated Democratic Party. That doesn't negate the enormous impact of the Dutch in New York. Anywhere you look in America, the culture and politics of the original, European settlers tend to endure and influence in some fashion or another. It is not a phenomenon unique to the New York metropolitan area. The Puritan influence in New England is enormous, even though Catholics, the majority of Irish descent, far outnumber protestants of English descent. The French influence in New Orleans and Southern Louisiana is also undeniable. The influence of the Scotch-Irish (whom Benjamin Franklin called white savages) in the Appalachians and inland South is enormous.

New York's Dutch influence is probably most evident to people who relocate here from other areas of the country.

I've discussed your assertion with two American friends here (one working at your embassy) and both replied with big grins, no words accompanied their facial expression

 

[kallipolis]

The Puritan influence in New England is enormous, even though Catholics, the majority of Irish descent, far outnumber protestants of English descent.

It is also noteworthy that some 13 American presidents were of Irish Protestant descent, and just one of Irish Catholic descent (JFK)

I'd say that Irish Protestants were much more influential in the development of the United States than Irish Catholics....excepting Irish Catholic influence in the police service

 

[Kulindahr]

What does the battle of Bannockburn have to do with The Magna Carta?

The Scots, and the English are still fighting one another...avoid attending a football game between the two countries.

The Magna Carta has nothing in it about democracy, Bannockburn (the Declaration) does.

 

[Kulindahr]

You may well be correct but its significance pales (lost in the sands of time) in comparison with The Magna Carta, a much more influential document.

It's significance can't pale in comparison to the Magna Carta, because there is no comparison: the Magna Carta knows nothing of democracy.

 

[bankside]

Democracy itself is inconsequential. The Magna Carta proposed the first constraints on the power of the ruler over the ruled. Without it the question would be "Who shall be our tyrant, the monarch or the mob?"

Who rules has never been as important as how the ruling is done, and Magna Carta put us on that path.

 

[Kulindahr]

Democracy itself is inconsequential. The Magna Carta proposed the first constraints on the power of the ruler over the ruled. Without it the question would be "Who shall be our tyrant, the monarch or the mob?"

Who rules has never been as important as how the ruling is done, and Magna Carta put us on that path.

Granted, while it made the first step towards limiting the power of the center, the Magna Carta didn't change that question, it just changed the way it's answered. British government tends to give the answer, "The mob", as does any government without checks and balances built in, and especially without a written constitution guaranteeing rights and limiting powers to those enumerated.

 

[kallipolis]

The Magna Carta has nothing in it about democracy, Bannockburn (the Declaration) does.

The process of democratisation among the English language nations began with The Magna Carta....that the charter lacked the word democracy does not negate the supreme significance of that document's importance initating the process of democratisation.

 

[kallipolis]

Granted, while it made the first step towards limiting the power of the center, the Magna Carta didn't change that question, it just changed the way it's answered. British government tends to give the answer, "The mob", as does any government without checks and balances built in, and especially without a written constitution guaranteeing rights and limiting powers to those enumerated.

You're playing with words...revealing a contrarian's response.

A written constitution does not guarantee the rights of the people, by limiting the powers of rulers.....the people provide that guarantee by their actions curtailing the power of rulers.....demonstrated by the American Revolution.

 

[bankside]

Granted, while it made the first step towards limiting the power of the center, the Magna Carta didn't change that question, it just changed the way it's answered. British government tends to give the answer, "The mob", as does any government without checks and balances built in, and especially without a written constitution guaranteeing rights and limiting powers to those enumerated.

No, not even at all. No. No no no. Not remotely.

The UK has a well-established constitution. It is forged into the national culture and baked into the brains of the people, and, from time to time, based on bits that are written down. The government has checks built in. The US concept is like a tug of war, with branches opposing each other. The Westminster concept does not set power in opposition to itself, but binds those forces together in tension, more like contestants in a three-legged race.

 

[Alnitak]

No, not even at all. No. No no no. Not remotely.

The UK has a well-established constitution. It is forged into the national culture and baked into the brains of the people, and, from time to time, based on bits that are written down. The government has checks built in. The US concept is like a tug of war, with branches opposing each other. The Westminster concept does not set power in opposition to itself, but binds those forces together in tension, more like contestants in a three-legged race.

Westminster does not have balanced independent powers no matter how you spin it.

 

[kallipolis]

No, not even at all. No. No no no. Not remotely.

The UK has a well-established constitution. It is forged into the national culture and baked into the brains of the people, and, from time to time, based on bits that are written down. The government has checks built in. The US concept is like a tug of war, with branches opposing each other. The Westminster concept does not set power in opposition to itself, but binds those forces together in tension, more like contestants in a three-legged race.

An accurate observation with the peoples of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand benefiting generously.

 

[kallipolis]

Westminster does not have balanced independent powers no matter how you spin it.

A theoretical understanding may suggest so, practice otherwise...while also appreciating that an undue focus on the small print can blind one to the beneficial working reality of the Westminster system of governance...

 

[Alnitak]

A theoretical understanding may suggest so, practice otherwise...while also appreciating that an undue focus on the small print can blind one to the beneficial working reality of the Westminster system of governance...

Actually the reverse is true. The Queen has the theoretical ability to veto bills, but in reality does not. The new court system also does not really check British law like the US Supreme Court does US law.

 

[kallipolis]

Actually the reverse is true. The Queen has the theoretical ability to veto bills, but in reality does not. The new court system also does not really check British law like the US Supreme Court does US law.

In practice it is Parliament that balances the equation with the House of Lords providing the screening..that occasionally sends bills back to The Commons for fine tuning.

That the Westminister system works as a constitutional monarchy the head of state has no practical say in vetoing legislation...for he, or she must accept their government's advice....while also noting that a monarch can offer advice in private to their prime minster that might influence the final drafting of a bill.

 

[Benvolio]

Technically, the US Supreme Court merely has authority to decide cases. Some times the decision requires the court to decide whether to enforce a law which appears to be inconsistent with the US Constitution. In that case, the court is obligated to enforce the Constitution. That was the holding of the famous Marbury v. Madison case.
Alas, in practice the court arrogates to itself the power to enact new laws and the people have no higher court to prevent the abuse.

 

[Kulindahr]

The process of democratisation among the English language nations began with The Magna Carta....that the charter lacked the word democracy does not negate the supreme significance of that document's importance initating the process of democratisation.

"The word democracy"? It doesn't even contain the slightest hint of a notion of democracy. And it provided no impetus to the formation of democracy, except insofar as it showed people that if they can show they have power, they can get in on sharing it.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're playing with words...revealing a contrarian's response.

A written constitution does not guarantee the rights of the people, by limiting the powers of rulers.....the people provide that guarantee by their actions curtailing the power of rulers.....demonstrated by the American Revolution.

Without a written constitution, the people only enjoy the rights they bother themselves to defend. Without a written constitution, in the US states would have bans on various types of music -- just for starters.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, not even at all. No. No no no. Not remotely.

The UK has a well-established constitution. It is forged into the national culture and baked into the brains of the people, and, from time to time, based on bits that are written down. The government has checks built in. The US concept is like a tug of war, with branches opposing each other. The Westminster concept does not set power in opposition to itself, but binds those forces together in tension, more like contestants in a three-legged race.

The UK "constitution" consists merely of those things the Parliament doesn't think they can get away with limiting. If there was a real constitution, the UK would be ashamed of the weakness of the protections for the right to keep and bear arms in the US, because it was from the UK that that right came. Indeed, if the UK had a "well-established constitution", there never would have been an American Revolution, because the Crown and Parliament wouldn't have been permitted to trample the traditional rights of Englishmen the way that led to that revolution.