Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 15:31 John Fields wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>John Fields wrote: > >>> > >>>>Nothing is forever. > >>>> > >>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? > >>> > >>>The Law Lords. > >> > >> --- > >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to > >> the extent of their building. > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 > >> > >> > >>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. > >> > >> --- > >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an > >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I > >> believe. > > > >They still don't have a single element codified constitution. > > > --- > Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. > > Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued > some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to > do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box > where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. The British Constitution is famously 'unwritten' and is based on precedent AFAIK. Graham
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 15:32 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:31:07 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>which isn't socialist at all. If it were a socialist >>>system we'd allow cripples in the US military. >> >>Please post an example of cripples in the military anywhere. > > > --- > Physical or mental? Wasn't dumb donkey formerly UK army or something? Of course they accept mental cripples. They let him in.
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2006 15:32 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, > >> which isn't socialist at all. If it were a socialist > >> system we'd allow cripples in the US military. > > > >Please post an example of cripples in the military anywhere. > > --- > Physical or mental? I believe unsettled meant physical. Graham
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2006 15:36 On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:58 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> >> --- >> >> Nothing is forever. >> >> >> >> You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >> > >> >The Law Lords. >> >> --- >> No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >> the extent of their building. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >> >> >In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >> >> --- >> OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >> actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >> believe. > >That would seem to be the case. > >We don't seem to have suffered as a result though. --- I don't think there's really any to tell until the Supreme Court has been operating for a while and gets a track record of its own. --- >The new Supreme Court is scheduled to open for business in 2009 or 2010 IIRC. --- Yes, and congratulations! What do you think of this: http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Democracy.htm -- JF
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 15:44
John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:12:59 -0600, unsettled > <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>John Fields wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:48 +0000, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>--- >>>>>Nothing is forever. >>>>> >>>>>You all now have a Supreme Court, no? >>>> >>>>The Law Lords. >>> >>> >>>--- >>>No I meant a _real_ Supreme Court, separate from Parliament even to >>>the extent of their building. >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>In recent times they have IIRC ruled that some legislation was illegal. >>> >>> >>>--- >>>OK, but _that_ was the Law Lords. There was no provision for an >>>actual Supreme Court before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, I >>>believe. >> >>They still don't have a single element codified constitution. >> > > --- > Yes, one of the few nations in the modern world who don't. > > Perhaps the reticence to frame one is the same as that which plagued > some of our founders, namely that if you say what you're allowed to > do, then unless you're careful you'll write yourself into a box > where that's _all_ you'll be allowed to do. A.V. Dicey wrote extensively about constitutions, in particular the British virtual one and that of the US. Here's an interesting tidbit written by him which relates to a comment I made earlier in this thread, that those things not specifically prohibited are permitted: "The rule of law, as described in this treatise, remains to this day a distinctive characteristic of the English constitution. In England no man can be made to suffer punishment or to pay damages for any conduct not definitely forbidden by law; every man's legal rights or liabilities are almost invariably determined by the ordinary Courts of the realm, and each man's individual rights are far less the result of our constitution than the basis on which that consitution is founded. "The principles laid down in this treatise with regard to the rule of law and to the nature of droit administratif need little change. My object in this Introduction is first to note a singular decline among modern Englishmen in their respect or reverence for the rule of law, and secondly, to call attention to certain changes in the droit administratif of France." http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm Dicey's texts are of interest to anyone researching the origins of our US constitution and common law. They sit well next to Blackstone's commentaries. |