Re: OT : a must read.

In article <kqd8m4l39bvqvk1kku9uk42p6rua5bgtc2@xxxxxxx>,
quiettechblue@xxxxxxxxx says...>
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:24:55 -0600, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:48:17 -0800, JosephKK <quiettechblue@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:49:57 -0600, krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:01:08 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:01:40 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:19:27 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:30:16 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
The Queen as hereditary Head of State means she is beyond populism and
party politics.
Any legislation requires her signature before becoming law, and all
organs of state are sworn to her, not Parliament. OTOH, all laws must
emanate from Parliament and be approved by them. It means in practice
that Parliament cannot sign away any of its Rights to any foreign or
domestic power simply because a new Parliament can undo any legislation
by acquiring her signature. It's a neat balancing act.

If the Queen exceeds her authority the Dutch invasion of England in 1688
stands as an example of what could happen.

Compare the US system where the Constitution could in theory be changed
to sign away the Rights of everyone and everything in perpetuity.
Consider a well armed population that can revolt against a corrupt
government, then compare them to a nation of unarmed cowards lead by a
figurehead queen.
Consider Iraq and Afghanistan where gun ownership is just as high.
A well armed population better include anti-tank and anti-air weaponry.
You get to own that in the US?
You assume the military would side with the government against the
people.
That's pretty much how it works.
Nope. This isn't Argentina.

Otherwise it's simply a military takeover.
Hardly.
So you foresee the US military overthrowing the govt eh?

No. I don't see the US military shooting their own.

Do you foresee the US military being used to arrest large numbers of
domestic terrorists if there was an organized internal attack on the
govt that the police could not handle?

Military, no.

Forgot Kent State College already i see.

Decidedly *NOT* the military.

By what distorted definition?

They were reporting to the state (Governor), not federal
government. They were *not* called up for military action, rather
police action.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT : a must read.
    ... Any legislation requires her signature before becoming law, ... organs of state are sworn to her, not Parliament. ... Compare the US system where the Constitution could in theory be changed ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT : a must read.
    ... Any legislation requires her signature before becoming law, ... organs of state are sworn to her, not Parliament. ... Compare the US system where the Constitution could in theory be changed ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT : a must read.
    ... Any legislation requires her signature before becoming law, ... organs of state are sworn to her, not Parliament. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT : a must read.
    ... Any legislation requires her signature before becoming law, ... organs of state are sworn to her, not Parliament. ... Compare the US system where the Constitution could in theory be changed ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT : a must read.
    ... Any legislation requires her signature before becoming law, ... organs of state are sworn to her, not Parliament. ... Compare the US system where the Constitution could in theory be changed ...
    (sci.electronics.design)