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

[Kulindahr]

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...

Practice shows that under the Westminster system there are no real rights, only privileges allowed by Parliament.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

I've never, ever seen solid evidence of that, even back when I agreed with that view. What is really meant by "enact new laws" is that the Court will continue to follow its own decisions, so that any law contrary to a decision is going to go down -- so all the Court actually does is make decisions; it just happens that when it makes a decision, it's for the entire country, and thus anything contrary to its decision is negated.

The only alternative is to have a Court made irrelevant because it can only handle a few cases a year, and all legislators would have to do to defy it is ignore it.

 

[Benvolio]

I've never, ever seen solid evidence of that, even back when I agreed with that view. What is really meant by "enact new laws" is that the Court will continue to follow its own decisions, so that any law contrary to a decision is going to go down -- so all the Court actually does is make decisions; it just happens that when it makes a decision, it's for the entire country, and thus anything contrary to its decision is negated.

The only alternative is to have a Court made irrelevant because it can only handle a few cases a year, and all legislators would have to do to defy it is ignore it.

When it goes beyond interpreting and applying the Constitution, it can fairly be accused of enacting new laws. Calling it anything else has the effect of condoning its abuse of power.

 

[Alnitak]

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.

Lords is not an independent body constituting a separate branch. It work in concert with Commons as one legislature.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

^ Here's a larger version of your map....

....along with an alternative I found....

....and another alternative....

....I'm geography obsessed, don't you know?

Those maps and the ones in other posts simply refer to different periods. The original post referred to 1750. Hence not much of California to Spain: San Francisco was founded in 1770, Santa Clara in 1777, and so on. Your first map contains dates as late as 1853, a full century later. Your other two maps show different times at the beginning of the 19th century.

 

[kallipolis]

Lords is not an independent body constituting a separate branch. It work in concert with Commons as one legislature.

No one has said it was....The House of Commons, and The House of Lords are the two houses of the United Kingdom Parliament..

 

[kallipolis]

Practice shows that under the Westminster system there are no real rights, only privileges allowed by Parliament.

So you, say...others, say differently...your opinion is noted

 

[kallipolis]

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.

Certainly......................that you, say so

 

[kallipolis]

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.

Try living in the United Kingdom, and then return to us with your thoughts based upon your practical living experience....

 

[kallipolis]

"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.

Of course The Magna Carta addresses the democratic process, for the supreme power of the monarch was broken, and devolved into the hands of the people....this is the document that initiates the practical implementation of the power of the people throughout the English speaking nations on this planet......the catalyst, so to speak.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course The Magna Carta addresses the democratic process, for the supreme power of the monarch was broken, and devolved into the hands of the people....this is the document that initiates the practical implementation of the power of the people throughout the English speaking nations on this planet......the catalyst, so to speak.

LOL

The people aren't part of the Magna Carta -- it deals only with the king, the nobles, and the Church. It may have implemented power-sharing, but certainly not with the people.

 

[Alnitak]

No one has said it was....The House of Commons, and The House of Lords are the two houses of the United Kingdom Parliament..

You intimated such. In the context of the US Constitution as balancing powers are based on Montesquieu and the Roman Republic, it was a false comparison to suggest that we based our balance of powers on the bicameral ministerial parliament that Great Britain had.

 

[Kulindahr]

You intimated such. In the context of the US Constitution as balancing powers are based on Montesquieu and the Roman Republic, it was a false comparison to suggest that we based our balance of powers on the bicameral ministerial parliament that Great Britain had.

OTOH, there was more of a balance back when the Constitution was written than there is now.

 

[Alnitak]

OTOH, there was more of a balance back when the Constitution was written than there is now.

Yeah, since Wyoming gets 71 times the representation of California in the Senate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, since Wyoming gets 71 times the representation of California in the Senate.

Um, Wyoming has never been represented in the UK Parliament.

 

[Alnitak]

Um, Wyoming has never been represented in the UK Parliament.

But you said...

... than there is now.

And hence what I said was a statement of agreement.

 

[Kulindahr]

But you said...


And hence what I said was a statement of agreement.

I'm missing something -- I was talking about the UK Parliament. How do Wyoming and California come in?

 

[Alnitak]

I'm missing something -- I was talking about the UK Parliament. How do Wyoming and California come in?

You said the "Constitution was written" in post 173.

Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

Therefore you meant the United States Congress.

 

[Kulindahr]

You said the "Constitution was written" in post 173.

Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

Therefore you meant the United States Congress.

You said:

You intimated such. In the context of the US Constitution as balancing powers are based on Montesquieu and the Roman Republic, it was a false comparison to suggest that we based our balance of powers on the bicameral ministerial parliament that Great Britain had.

So I said:

OTOH, there was more of a balance back when the Constitution was written than there is now.

So I'm talking about the UK parliament.

 

[bankside]

It's wrong to say Britain doesn't have a written constitution. The constitution of the UK is not limited to written form, but certainly it is so expressed when the occasion demands. Act of Settlement, Magna Carta. Judicial opinions. Even history books. It is improper to say this is not constitutional, for all of it expresses how the government is intended, and obliged, to function.

Reading the thoughts of some Americans in this thread you'd think the point of UK governance was to create a government embodying unbounded power hell bent on tyranny. Of course there is a political necessity to constrain power, and of course there are effective mechanisms within Westminster systems for doing this; they just look different than US constitutional doctrine. The US system divvies up power and sets the powerful against each other, assuming gridlock will provide some kind of pleasant antidote to overreach. The Westminster system binds the powerful together, denying any of them an independent encampment from which to wage attack on the others, or even the time to do it. Thatcher found that out in the UK. Harper is starting to get second glances in Canada. I like the fact that my representative can enact the will of his constituency at any moment and cause the government to fall or raise a new one.

Constitutional conventions and constitutional traditions are no less constitutional simply because they aren't subject to the ratification of some number of sub-national jurisdictions meeting some arbitrary threshold in a federal system.