Welcome to UKIPland- a nightmare vision of future britain

Page 5 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 276
Location: West Central Indiana

02 Jun 2014, 5:18 am

The two term limit for Presidents was another amendment added to the Constitution. President Roosevelt won 4 terms in office and the people didn't want that to happen again. It is not easy to pass an amendment. It must pass both houses of Congress by, I believe, a 75% vote in favor. It then must be ratified by 75% of the 50 states.
As a side note, members of the military take an oath "to defend the Constitution of the United States". We never take an oath to support a person.
The last amendment added was in the 1970s.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

03 Jun 2014, 2:33 pm

Democracy in the UK will be nothing more than a facade as long as we have an unelected head of state, hereditary peers and unelected lords.

Then that would only be starting to address the problem.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Arran
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 393

03 Jun 2014, 5:02 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Democracy in the UK will be nothing more than a facade as long as we have an unelected head of state, hereditary peers and unelected lords.


The Labour Party has had more than enough decades to consign them to the scrapheap as well as kicking the Remembrancer of the City of London out of the House of Commons...

...but they haven't, so why should any intelligent person believe that they will offer anything but the status quo in the future?



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,922

04 Jun 2014, 4:50 am

I think it would be a good idea for everyone to vote for themselves at the next general election. Maybe I could start a web campaign for it.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,508
Location: Lancashire, UK

04 Jun 2014, 11:20 am

thomas81 wrote:
Democracy in the UK will be nothing more than a facade as long as we have an unelected head of state, hereditary peers and unelected lords.


We will then have an upper house that's a replica of the lower house.

It might be better to have a sortition type system rather than the hereditary peers that we have. I don't think electing the Lords is helpful.

Oh, and she might not be elected, but Brenda is popular. I bet she's more popular than that idiot that calls himself President of Ireland.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

04 Jun 2014, 6:55 pm

You at least have the advantage that the unelected Upper House is clearly and unambiguously subordinate to the House of Commons.

Canada's Senate has coequal power with the House of Commons, but because of its lack of electoral mandate, it has generally limited itself to constructive revision of legislation. The last public bill refused by the Senate was the attempt to write a new abortion law in the 80's.

But Australia's situation demonstrated itself to be much more dangerous. An elected Senate, with coequal powers and a legitimate electoral mandate refused supply in 1975 and brought down the Government of the day. That is, to my way of thinking, an intolerable circumstance. In a federal country, an Upper House serves an important balancing factor; but this should always be tempered with the clear an unambiguous primacy of the Lower House.

On the other hand, an unelected Head of State can be very valuable. If the Head of State and the Head of Government both have electoral mandates, stalemate can occur. The French constitution was amended to move parliamentary elections so as to minimize the likelihood of cohabitation administrations. While not directly relevant, the US budgetary deadlocks demonstrate what can happen when the legislature and the government refuse to work together.

Far from being undemocratic, the Crown has demonstrated itself to be willingly subordinate to the Advice of the Government of the Day, And I, for one, am quite happy that there is one person to whom the Prime Minister must defer when called to account.


_________________
--James