GSM Encryption
in [Cryptography]
|
From: rossum on 2 Jan 2010 13:38 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:46:55 GMT, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >Everything is the gov't is in her name. Good. It stops the politicians >especially the prime minister, from thinking they are god. One of the Orders of Chivalry that the Queen doles out in the Honours Lists is the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. These are normally distributed to top Civil Servants, Ambassadors and such like. In increasing order of importance they are: CMG - "Call Me God." KCMG - "Kindly Call Me God." GCMG - "God Calls Me God." rossum
From: Bernd Felsche on 2 Jan 2010 20:38 unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >On 2010-01-02, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: >> Frank Merlott wrote: >>>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly >>>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process. >>>> The monarch is not a dictator. >> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?), >> but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an >> election, despite any earlier sillinesses. >Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political >emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. >> She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve >> Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last >> happened in 1928 or so, iirc. >> >> She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by >> Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently. >> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament >> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. >In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The Governor >General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her permission >to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the "representative" in >name only. Again, that name only is important as it stops the Governor >General from thinking they are god. Not entirely correct. HM may disallow assent to Federal legislation for up to a year after the legislation is passed, even if the GG agrees. The GG is chosen by a "political" process; by government and recommended to HM. Section 59 of the Constitution. <http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/general/Constitution/par5cha1.htm> >> The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc. >> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... >In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie >breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly say >it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but they are >an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial powers. Not true for Australia. HM's powers are limited but powerful reserves. Section 61: The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The most dangerous ignorance is the X against HTML mail | ignorance of the educated class. / \ and postings | -- Thomas Sowell
From: unruh on 2 Jan 2010 21:12 On 2010-01-03, Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >>On 2010-01-02, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: >>> Frank Merlott wrote: > >>>>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly >>>>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process. >>>>> The monarch is not a dictator. > >>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?), >>> but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an >>> election, despite any earlier sillinesses. > >>Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political >>emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. > >>> She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve >>> Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last >>> happened in 1928 or so, iirc. >>> >>> She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by >>> Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently. > >>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament >>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. > >>In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The Governor >>General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her permission >>to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the "representative" in >>name only. Again, that name only is important as it stops the Governor >>General from thinking they are god. > > Not entirely correct. HM may disallow assent to Federal legislation > for up to a year after the legislation is passed, even if the GG > agrees. The GG is chosen by a "political" process; by government and > recommended to HM. > Section 59 of the Constitution. ><http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/general/Constitution/par5cha1.htm> Hm. You are right that-- this also applied to Canada (2 yrs rather than 1) Fortunately or otherwise, any attempt by the queen to use these powers would result in a constitutional crisis. The independence of the Canadian Parliament from the Queen except in name was established in about 1850 when the GG assented to bills without refering them to the Queen. > >>> The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc. > >>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... > >>In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie >>breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly say >>it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but they are >>an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial powers. > > Not true for Australia. HM's powers are limited but powerful > reserves. Section 61: > The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the > Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the > Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and > maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the > Commonwealth. "Is vested in the queen and is exercisable by the GG" It is the GG that exercises the powers. Again, any attempt by the queen to exercise the powers in defiance of the GG would create such a mess, that those parts of the constitution would not survive either in Australia or in Canada.
From: invalid on 3 Jan 2010 07:03 "rossum" <rossum48(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message news:s94vj591kn39g99ebgcg4gb3tm5g43gcjh(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:46:55 GMT, unruh > <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >>Everything is the gov't is in her name. Good. It stops the politicians >>especially the prime minister, from thinking they are god. > One of the Orders of Chivalry that the Queen doles out in the Honours > Lists is the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. These are > normally distributed to top Civil Servants, Ambassadors and such like. > In increasing order of importance they are: > CMG - "Call Me God." > KCMG - "Kindly Call Me God." > GCMG - "God Calls Me God." MBE - "Much Bullshit of England!" OBE - "Over-supplied Bullshit of England!" CBE - "Complete Bullshit of England!" KBE - "Knickers! Bullshit of England!"
From: Thomas Pornin on 3 Jan 2010 14:17
According to Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam(a)arcor.de>: > BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held > prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted? Actually, the barons forced unto the King John on June 1216 the "Magna Carta", a bounding law which specifically prohibits the King from ordering such arbitrary detention. So it really is the other way round. --Thomas Pornin |