tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post654356141209580741..comments2023-08-20T11:07:28.396+01:00Comments on Freeborn John: Starkey on constitutional reformPeter Risdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-39758596581823051732009-10-16T11:49:45.883+01:002009-10-16T11:49:45.883+01:00Notwithstanding the need to sweep away the entrenc...Notwithstanding the need to sweep away the entrenched privilege & profligacy of the monarchy, we need honest people to stand up and defend our freedom, working unselfishly together at a local level: how can it be good for overpaid & egotistic bureaucrats & 'politicians' in Brussels to decide what is right for the UK?<br />Career politicians have their place, but politics doesn't need to be a career: if everyone contributed a small amount of time & commitment regularly, instead of feathering the nest and ignoring the slow decline into a control state "for our own good", we might achieve a constructive & equitable society.<br />The sad thing is that most people don't understand politics [which is unnecessarily complicated it has to be said] and are very happy to have a pop at the rascals caught with their snouts in the trough, but basically they don't care as long as they can get on with their lives relatively unhindered, and they don't have to think too hard about the moral & ethical problems of what is happening all around them and beggaring the country in the process.NĂos Saoirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073836638266826353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-26826586772979010802009-09-25T13:26:27.047+01:002009-09-25T13:26:27.047+01:00The problems with your suggestion are two-fold:
1...The problems with your suggestion are two-fold:<br /><br />1. Nearly everything is decided in Brussels now (soon to be practically completely everything, post-Lisbon), so what happens at our provincial parliament becomes less and less significant.<br /><br />2. Any written constitution adopted now will just be an attempt by the political class to entrench their views and their privileges, and the general interventionist big-state left-liberal agenda. The time to stop all this happening was probably 1945.Weekend Yachtsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262853091154005651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-17115626883644573752009-09-24T20:49:57.377+01:002009-09-24T20:49:57.377+01:00"Quite. Liberal and socialist republicans (ug..."Quite. Liberal and socialist republicans (ugh) acting well above their position have brought us to this ludicrous point. "<br /><br />Better a republican of any hue than a royalist.<br /><br />We should go the whole hog and dethrone that wretched family of European in-breds.Trooper Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01505221473081871071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-27852768077083650532009-09-21T17:50:18.605+01:002009-09-21T17:50:18.605+01:00Well yes, Wade-Roe was clearly unconstitutional, a...Well yes, Wade-Roe was clearly unconstitutional, and I say that as someone who is pro-abortion, albeit reluctantly and unenthusiastically. But to pretend that the Constitution has anything to do with abortion is just a disgraceful act of intellectual dishonesty. There are plenty of other examples through the years.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-14921084567406975042009-09-21T16:12:51.414+01:002009-09-21T16:12:51.414+01:00I don't think you will ever find cases in whic...I don't think you will ever find cases in which the Supreme court has actually violated the Constitution, in any sense that they admit to. Depending on your stand on certain issues, you may think they have. For example, the Supreme Court said that the right to an abortion was protected "between the lines" of the constitution. If you are against abortion, you will call this a violation. But the Supreme Court is very careful to claim that they have ALWAYS respected the Constitution. You can call this "wiggle room", but I guess that is why we have court to begin with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-21364697745418731252009-09-21T15:01:10.714+01:002009-09-21T15:01:10.714+01:00Can you give an example of the Supreme Court rulin...Can you give an example of the Supreme Court ruling unconstitutionally? I'm interested, not doubting. <br /><br />That's got to be a problem, since one of its roles is to prevent the other arms of govt from breaching the Constitution.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-6835570325596395612009-09-21T14:55:11.148+01:002009-09-21T14:55:11.148+01:00"The emergence of somebody like Gordon Brown,..."The emergence of somebody like Gordon Brown, who is so totally unsuited to the office and never actually been subject to the test of election, would be unthinkable in America": this is not perhaps the best moment in history to make this point. It's worth looking at a detailed account of Obama's electoral history - his Presidential victory is about the only non-doctored win in his career. And all this whingeing about Brown misses the point that it's perfectly normal for us to get an PM who didn't lead his party in a general election - e.g the first terms of Churchill, Macmillan, and Major, and the whole terms of Eden, Douglas Home, and Callaghan; and that's just the ones since 1940.<br /><br />I used to be quite pro Written Constitutions, but since I've become aware of how often the Supreme Court in the US just ignores the bloody document and substitutes its own whims, I have cooled. If someone can suggest how to ensure that a Supreme Court act with a decent measure of intellectual honesty, I might relent. Don't forget that the two events that really shaped the USA - the Louisiana Purchase and the Civil War - were both unConstitutional.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12471112.post-67854639852378628982009-09-21T14:18:56.376+01:002009-09-21T14:18:56.376+01:00You haven't out in the context in which he sai...You haven't out in the context in which he said it. <br /><br />"It's only respect for convention that holds you back, and Labour has a very bad record in this regard - going back to the Parliament Act - of forcing major constitutional change unilaterally. Always, of course, in the name of social justice and nice things like that. The situation that we find ourselves in now is that our structure of government is broken"<br /><br />Quite. Liberal and socialist republicans (ugh) acting well above their position have brought us to this ludicrous point. The Monarchist blog said it best of all in their piece about the introduction of the welfare state. And little doubt Starkey would agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com