[QUOTE=acsenray]
All that means is that in the United States, the powers of a “head of goverment” are divided among three entities. It is not proof that the constitution creates a “head of state” of any kind.
[/QUOTE]
Regardless of whether the Constitution appoints one, you kind of have to have one, as a state, unless you’re an anarchy, in which case the question of your statehood is moot.
In the absence of a defined head of state, the head of government IS the head of state.
The Wikipedia definition is nonsense. There are plenty of nation-states which don’t have a constitution, so using the concept to define an essential feature of a state is silly.
Not to mention, there are lots of states whose constitutions make no mention of a head of state. This is certainly not to say that there isn’t one. What would you call Pervez Musharraf? Even if you don’t consider him a legitimate example because he wasn’t elected, the Pakistani constitution is entirely silent on the powers and duties of the HoS.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Foreign heads of state want to meet the other heads of state and/or goverment who are propping up their dictatorships/investing in their flagging nationalized enterprises/selling them subsidized arms, etc.
[/QUOTE]
The UK being the largest foreign investor in the US probably does help prop up the regime…
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
He acts internationally as the embodiment of our government, especially since he has the power to establish treaties (with the advice and concurrence of the Senate). He appoints our ambassadors.
[/quote]
These points certainly encompass some of what goes into to making a head of state, but in my view they aren’t necessarily sufficient.
But these statements …
[quote]
He is the single, solitary person in whom we as a people consider the power of our government to be embodied.
… I believe are not clearly supported, either by the text of the constitution or by history.
I think there’s a very good argument that the authors of the Constitution believed that Congress was the most important entity of the government.
And I don’t think there’s much evidence at all that they intended any single governmental entity to constitute the “personification of our nation’s power.”
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
…It is also a fiction that the reason for his abdication was because he couldn’t be allowed to marry a divorcee…
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t just that she was divorced (although that certainly didn’t help). She was also twice divorced and an adultress. And she was a commoner. And American. She even started to prematurely act as Edward’s consort while she was only his mistress. There were also rumours that she had an abortion and slept with other men while sleeping with Edward (and while still married to her husband). And Edward was pretty careless with the secret state documents he was sent. Letting her see them and such. Not only did Baldwin and his cabinet threaten to resign the Leader of the Opposition and other senior polictians refused to consider forming one if His Majesty asked.
[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
…
[1] Its a polite fiction that Edward [VIII] voluntarily abdicated,The Royal Family and the government of the day joined forces and gave him the choice of jumping before he was pushed and he chose the face saving option.
[2] It is also a fiction that the reason for his abdication was because he couldn’t be allowed to marry a divorcee.
[3] Mrs. Simpson was what we would call today a “swinger” and enjoyed some very liberated sexual practices and had some very shady friends but even that wasn’t the reason he was forced out.
[4] He was an admirer of the German(then Nazi)state and was friendly disposed towards their leaders,even at that time it was obvious that Britain and Germany would almost certainly be at war in the near future so he had to go…
[/QUOTE]
I’ve read a lot about the 1936 abdication crisis. I’d agree with paragraph 3, but disagree with the others. The King’s minor flirtations with the Nazis really didn’t loom large at the time. Note that Winston Churchill, out of power but vehemently anti-Nazi, was a big supporter of Edward VIII’s in the Mrs. Simpson controversy. Essentially, the King wanted to marry an American divorcee of dubious reputation, which was absolutely crazy, given the mores of the time. The PM said you can have the crown or the dame, but not both. Edward made his decision. There was tremendous pressure on him, I’ll concede, but it wasn’t over the likely foe in a second world war that most Britons feared and hoped would never come.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Regardless of whether the Constitution appoints one, you kind of have to have one, as a state, unless you’re an anarchy, in which case the question of your statehood is moot.
[/quote]
Oh … reaaaallly? :dubious: You have to have one or else you’re an anarchy? Can you support that hypothesis?
So what is the essential definition of a head of state? I’m willing to accept this portion of the Wikipedia article.
My position is that the U.S. Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly provides for any individual to “personify” the state or the continuity of the state or the legitimacy of the state. The president is granted certain powers, some of which are in some governmental systems are granted to a head of state, but none of these powers on their own make a single person the personification of any of those things.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
So the last UK monarch to refuse assent reigned around 1702?
Then was was Jefferson talking about in the Declaration of Independence when he said of King George III “…he has refused assent to laws…”???
[/QUOTE]
Anne was the last British monarch to refuse assent to an act of parliament in 1708. Colonial governors however could and did refuse assent to acts of the local legislature. Since they act in His Majesty’s name it was as if the King was refusing assent to local laws. This happened in Canada as recently as the 1930s.
So let’s say a charismatic monarch wanted to flex their political muscle. Nothing dictatorial, just refusing to give Royal Assent on a couple of bills or reading their own speech at the opening of Parliament - what would be the result? Would Parliament really abolish the monarchy? If they did, how popular would they be?
Considering that the House of Commons has stripped most of the power from the House of Lords over the last 100 years, if they got rid of the monarchy, would THEY be viewed as the despots?
I guess what I’m asking in short is:
Why hasn’t the Commons gotten rid of the monarchy if it is just a figurehead?
What could a monarch do to get the Commons to abolish the institution?
If the Commons were to abolish the monarchy, would it be accepted by the people?
Don’t underestimate the Crown’s power to disolve Parliament. That is one very strong power that could be exercised should Parliament go so far off the rails as to impinge heavily against democracy.
As far a taking advice from a leader of a party who for one reason or another may not actually hold a seat in Partliament at the time, the Queen takes advice from her Privy Council, to which anyone can be appointed by her. She appoints the unelected party leader to her Privy Council, and then at the earliest opportunity he runs for election in a riding and hopefully gets elected to Parliament where he then sits in the Privy Council wearing the hat of Prime Minister. I expect that if after a couple of attempts he fails to get elected, the Queen would turf him from her Privy Council, but that is just conjecture on my part.
[QUOTE=Muffin]
…the Queen would turf him from her Privy Council, but that is just conjecture on my part.
[/QUOTE]
No she wouldn’t. He wouldn’t be Prime Minister, but membership in the Privy Council is for life. There are several hundred members. By custom the Queen only dismisses a Privy Councilor if he’s convicted of a crime.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
You’ll note that the United States doesn’t even usually favor Great Britain with an ambassador of high diplomatic quality, preferring instead to send to London someone with the financial ability to “put on a good show.”
[/QUOTE]
Amid all the wild claims that have been thrown about in this thread of late, I would like to know more about this one. I’m not necessarily saying it’s incorrect, I just wish to know more. US ambassadors to Britain are expected to personally pay towards the cost of buttering up the Brits? It’s considered a second-rate posting? This is totally news to me.
[QUOTE=Usram]
Amid all the wild claims that have been thrown about in this thread of late, I would like to know more about this one. I’m not necessarily saying it’s incorrect, I just wish to know more. US ambassadors to Britain are expected to personally pay towards the cost of buttering up the Brits? It’s considered a second-rate posting? This is totally news to me.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about the Ambassador having to pay for stuff, but as far as I can tell there’s only ever been one professional diplomat had the job (Raymond Seitz 1991-1994).
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Informally, the queen has decades of continuous involvement in the governmental and diplomatic arenas and interpersonal relationships with most heads of state/government in the world and can give her government very effective advice when the PM consults with her.
[/QUOTE]
There is no evidence that HM has any brains or has ever given anyone any effective advice.
Her meetings with foreign Heads of State are usually at huge banquets with interpreters - hardly the place to discuss anything.
She meets the current Prime Minister (PM) once a week (no results of this are ever mentioned) and makes a speech, written entirely by the PM, at the start of each session of Parliament.
Considering the dysfunctional nature of the Royal family (1) and their lack of understanding of ordinary people (2), what reason have you to believe your post?
(1) The Queen Mother was a gambling addict, Prince Philip frequently gives offence in public speeches, most of the Queen’s kids have been divorced etc
(2) The vastly wealthy Royal family asked for public donations to rebuild Windsor castle after a fire. The idea was later dropped.
Prince Charles has a valet to run his bath and put toothpaste on his toothbrush.
[QUOTE=glee]
There is no evidence that HM has any brains or has ever given anyone any effective advice.
[/QUOTE]
As I’ve noted before to this assertion, there is plenty of evidence, provided by practically every PM who has served her and appreciated the depth of her political and constitutional experience and the soundness of her advice.
[QUOTE=glee]
There is no evidence that HM has any brains or has ever given anyone any effective advice.
Her meetings with foreign Heads of State are usually at huge banquets with interpreters - hardly the place to discuss anything.
She meets the current Prime Minister (PM) once a week (no results of this are ever mentioned) and makes a speech, written entirely by the PM, at the start of each session of Parliament.
Considering the dysfunctional nature of the Royal family (1) and their lack of understanding of ordinary people (2), what reason have you to believe your post?
(1) The Queen Mother was a gambling addict, Prince Philip frequently gives offence in public speeches, most of the Queen’s kids have been divorced etc
(2) The vastly wealthy Royal family asked for public donations to rebuild Windsor castle after a fire. The idea was later dropped.
Prince Charles has a valet to run his bath and put toothpaste on his toothbrush.
[/QUOTE]
I dont suppose that your antipathy to the Windsors could be just a teensy weensy bit prejudiced by your conviction that Diana was an angel incarnate in spite of all the revelations that have come from many different sources that maybe she wasn’t ?
Though interestingly enough all the allegations about her dreadful treatment by the Windsors have been found to originate with her in spite of her instructing the journalists she met privately in Kensington restaraunts to publish her fairy stories as information supplied by "Friends of Diana?
Giving her little stories a spurious air of both authenticity and impartiality when read in the following days tabloids.
A little bit similar to the anonymus phone call from an “ordinary member of the public
" late one night to inform the press that Saint Diana was making a” secret " visit to all the sweet little Kiddywinks in the Great Ormond street hospital.
What a charming little story that would have been if only it hadn’t of been spoiled by the Press recognising her mobile phone number.
I dont know about her being the "Princess of Hearts"but she was most certainly the Princess of Many Faces.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I’ll say this for you, your posts are always…
…well, pretty strange, really.
Nobody particularly wants to meet the Queen, mate. Frankly, nobody really wants to meet the PM anymore, either. Foreign heads of state want to meet the other heads of state and/or goverment who are propping up their dictatorships/investing in their flagging nationalized enterprises/selling them subsidized arms, etc.
since HM doesn’t personally do any of this stuff, and nor does the PM really these days, given the massive drop in British foreign aid over the years, nobody outside NATO really gives a toss about meeting the Queen. And not even NATO, really.
Russia has tons of oil. China has enough spare productive capacity to build you… well, anything you want, really, and twice as cheaply as the next bidder; also, lots and lots of surplus foreign currency, which is quite handy too.
[/QUOTE]
Gosh thats such a relief!
Does “Being strange” mean that I’m not just another run of the mill,faceless member of the masses churning out the sameold ,sameold" everyone knows" type of opinion ,the main point of which is not to be different from everyone else?
As to your unflattering opinion of the U.K. you wouldn’t be of Irish extraction perchance?
Your comments on N.A.T.O. and the Queen were a little bizarre to say the least and frankly have totally mystified me.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Absolute rubbish, the sort of nonsense spouted by the English simply to make themselve still feel important. I would doubt highly that you could find evidence to support your opinion that a foreign diplomat considers a reception by the Queen of Great Britain to be more important an achievement than reception by, say, the President of the People’s Republic of China. You’ll note that the United States doesn’t even usually favor Great Britain with an ambassador of high diplomatic quality, preferring instead to send to London someone with the financial ability to “put on a good show.”
[/QUOTE]
Actually I dont think that anyone in Britain really cares anymore about whether we’re important or not,we’ve done that,got the t-shirt and its pretty much old hat now.
Though we do try to be good friends and loyal allies to the U.S.
I’m always glad to learn from these boards so I’m grateful that the misapprehension that I’ve been labouring under for all these years ie. that London and Paris were always considered to be plum diplomatic postings by Americans has been shown up as the vile calumny that it actually is.
I can see your point that "wheeler dealer"hard negotiating Ambassadors are 'nt appointed to the U.K.
Could that be because the two nations are friends and the U.S. feels that many of our interests coincide so doesn’t need coercion to get us on their side?
Or maybe it could be that on important topics the P.M. and the P.O.T.U.S. discuss the subject directly with each other on the phone?
I seem to recall Bush saying to Blair dont supply troops for the invasion of Iraq if its going to lose you the general election and Blair repeating “Read my lips” we’re with you all the way on this one(not verbatim ,but not far off)
I saw a film years ago where a bloke had a queue of people lining up to have a duel with him,as soon as he finished one fight someone else took the losers place and then he had to fight them and then the next and the next.
I feel just like him at the moment but I’m off now to inflame evryones passions on a different thread,see you all in a minute.
