Obama's Inauguration

Post Reply New Topic

The Canadian do not have a problem with sovereignty: The have a sovereign, an elder lady of German origin with an address in London SW1.

---

But I am always astonished regarding the big show the US makes for a new president: Parade, parties, etc. When e.g. Germany get a new president the parliament interrupts its agenda for 15 min., the chap elected takes his oath of office, and than parliament goes back to his normal business. That's all.

The Queen of England has no real power, not even in England.

Yeah, I'm not fond of the whole song and dance routine either. It's gone way overboard.

After a while, the whole thing seemed kind of self-congratulatory.

It is a common misconception that a sovereign must really have the power. A sovereign is only the formal source of power, but does not need exercise his power. In continental law, a sovereign is formally needed to execute his "Pouvoir Constituant Originaire" - the act of giving a constitution in the first place and than, even remaining the source of all power of the state, steps in the background and leaves the execution of this power to the "Pouvoir Constitué", the institution created via the constitution.

Thus in the UK no formal constitution exist, the "Pouvoir Constituant Originaire" has never been executed, but is formed by tradition which obliques the monarch to act only within the will of the parliament.

That wasn't always the case. King Henry VIII was pretty damned close to being an absolute monarch. He was only slightly constrained by the laws of the land.

Probably from the time of the Restoration on the monarchy was tamed. Better a tame monarch than the likes of "king" Oliver and his spoil-sport buddies.

ruveyn

Wait, are you speaking of the Democrats or the Republicans? I guess Obama shouldn't compromise with the Democrats and Republicans because they're both as corrupt as each other. That's gonna be tough, when he is a democrat.

The monarchy was in some respect tamed earlier: Henry VIII asked parliament for act of his succession and for act regarding his title and his religious settlement. Even he (or better Cromwell) was the author, parliament still remembered this. So in 1583, Thomas Smyth, a secretary of the Privy Council of Elizabeth I wrote:

"The most high and absolute power of the realme of Englande, is in the Parliament. ... That which is doone by this consent is called firme, stable, and sanctum, and is taken for lawe. The Parliament abrogateth olde lawes, maketh newe, giveth orders for thinges past, and for thinges hereafter to be followed, changeth rightes, and possessions of private men, legittimateth bastards, establisheth formes of religion, altereth weightes and measures, giveth formes of succession to the crowne, defineth of doubtfull rightes, whereof is no lawe alreadie made, appointeth subsidies, tailes, taxes, and impositions, giveth most free pardons and absolutions, restoreth in bloud and name as the highest court, condemneth or absolveth them whom the Prince will put to that triall: And to be short, all that ever the people of Rome might do either in Centuriatis comitijs or tributis, the same may be doone by the parliament of Englande, which representeth and hath the power of the whole realme both the head and the bodie. For everie Englishman is entended to bee there present, either in person or by procuration and attornies, of what preheminence, state, dignitie, or qualitie soever he be, from the Prince (be he King or Queene) to the lowest person of Englande. And the consent of the Parliament is taken to be everie mans consent." (De Republica Anglorum, Book II, Chapter 1)

Which is a fully developed theory of parliamentarian sovereignty. Elizabeth I was very much aware about the danger parliament could have for the real power of the monarch and tried to call in parliament not more often than needed (five or six time during her reign). Her last parliament, 1601, she even needed to intervene personally and made significant concessions in respect of monopoles (her "Golden Speech"). The Stuart lacked her finesse in dealing with parliament, which finally ended in current situation of a mere decorative monarch.

So Henry VIII (and his father Henry VII) were more exceptions than than normal pattern.

---

It also to mention that ideas of "sovereignty" appears hardly prior the 16th century and the very act defining this idea were made under the reign of Henry VIII, like the 1st Act of Supremacy, 1534.

You may want to learn what separation of church and state actually means.

So true. If one looks carefully one will see that the U.S. government has not set up a preferred religion or church by law, nor does it administer a religion test to hold office. Both are forbidden by the Constitution. There is no prohibition in the Constitution for having a preacher say a few pious words prior to important convocations. Such an action does not establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

ruveyn

Those actions are not establishment of religion. On the other hand, using the police power of the state to enforce religious laws is... like the prohibition on selling alcohol on the sacred day of Sunday.