Prev: New mode for AES: "Packet Mode"
Next: Scalable Key Cryptography – Balinese Language.
From: unruh on 4 Jan 2010 15:28
On 2010-01-04, Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam(a)arcor.de> wrote:
> Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political
>>>> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.
>>
>>>Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special
>>>powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)
>>
>> The "emergency" is when parliaments become unworkable due to
>> political conflict.
>
> Still, it bypasses the democratically elected representatives of the
> people. As such, it automatically is dictatorial.

???? These powers are there for the situations in which the
democratically elected representatives are unable to come to a decision.
You are broadening the meaning of dictatorial to encompass almost
everything and the word loses all meaning.

>
> Besides - who decides when it is legal to use the emergency powers?

In Canada ultimately the courts.

>
> Juergen Nieveler
From: Maaartin on 4 Jan 2010 17:32
> > You are broadening the meaning of dictatorial to encompass almost
> > everything and the word loses all meaning.
>
> Not really. It's dictatorial if one person who was not elected by
> majority vote makes a decision that puts all those who WERE elected out
> of power.

The following is surely OT for this already OT discussion, but what do
you think about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y2VrhjWj9E&feature=player_embedded
From: Richard Outerbridge on 4 Jan 2010 19:26
In article <slrnhk4jr2.ej1.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>,
unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> In Canada ultimately the courts.

Ah, well, of course, but just before he Prorogued Parliament Mr.
Harper's Government expressly _disobeyed_ the Courts, didn't it?

And when the Government of the day disobeys the Courts, where does
it answer to? Parliament - oh, wait, that's Prorogued. The common
electorate? Oh, they'll have forgotten by then, surely.

outer
From: Bernd Felsche on 4 Jan 2010 21:02
Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam(a)arcor.de> wrote:
>Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>>>> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a
>>>> political emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power.

>>>Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special
>>>powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-)

>> The "emergency" is when parliaments become unworkable due to
>> political conflict.

>Still, it bypasses the democratically elected representatives of the
>people. As such, it automatically is dictatorial.

>Besides - who decides when it is legal to use the emergency powers?

The Constitution determines when it may be done.
It's the rule of law.

See the link that I posted to Australia's Constitution.
The text is about 10% that of Germany's Grundgesetz (Gg).

I have read both. Even though I'm not a lawyer.

The latter seems to be significantly based upon the former, with
the latter adding stuff like a definition (some argue a limitation)
of rights; and the definiton of selection of President (as Head of
State) and a whole lot of powers that HM doesn't have in e.g.
Australia. If the President manages to "stack" the High Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht), then a premature dismissal becomes
impossible.

Germany's President may call an early election of the Bundestag
(Article 39(3)). This is an "emergency power" in Australia;
restricted constitutionally to particular circumstances. Article 68
of the Gg provides far more latitude and the President isn't limited
by just that article.
--
/"\ 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: Peter Fairbrother on 6 Jan 2010 04:55
unruh wrote:
> 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:

>>>> 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.

That's executive power, not legislative power - and the Queen's reserve
powers are quite different powers again.

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal
Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of
Representatives" (section 1 of the constitution)

> 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.


I don't know much about Canada.

In Australia authority comes first and foremost from the reserve powers
of the Queen - secondly from the Constitution itself - and then come
powers granted by the Constitution to the Queen and the GG.


[The Constitution doesn't affect the Queen's reserve or other powers,
and explicitly admits their existence as overriding powers, without
being specific as to what they are - that's mostly up to the Queen to
decide (!), although there are limitations.]


The GG's powers as granted by the Constitution include any of the
Queen's reserve powers the Queen assigns to the GG, and these are
limited by the Constitution if the GG uses them - however they are *not*
limited by the Constitution if the Queen uses them herself.


For instance, under the constitution the GG doesn't normally have the
power to dissolve the Senate (s5, s57) - and the Queen can't give him
that power (s2) - but the Queen herself can dissolve the Senate at any
time she chooses, that's a reserve power.



Not that she really needs it.



Under the constitution (s2) the Queen has the power to dismiss the GG at
whim and appoint a new one if the GG doesn't do what she wants.

The Queen can even do away with the office of the GG completely, and
appoint someone to administer the Government, again at whim. Again,
that's in the Constitution (s4), and she doesn't need any reserve powers
to do it.




It's actually probably quite a good arrangement - if he/she does
something which the people don't like, they'll probably change the
rules, but until then - she doesn't do anything, unless it's needed, and
if she does a bad thing people probably won't let her do it again, so
she's probably not going to do a bad thing, and she can do a good thing
if needed.


How did we get here!


-- Peter Fairbrother
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: New mode for AES: "Packet Mode"
Next: Scalable Key Cryptography – Balinese Language.