Are There Any (Real) Monarchists In France?

[yabob]

@LSLGuy

Actually, Presidents get to appoint as many Justices as vacancies occur. Which might be zero or might be all nine during their Presidential term. That all depends on luck, timing, illness, etc. The check against ideological packing is only the Senate’s refusal to countenance such.

To be sure, with FDR in the White House for 12 years he had an unusually long, and never (?) to be repeated chance to pack the court. And I’d also bet without knowing that his proposed retirement age wasn’t selected entirely at random. …

Maybe not NEVER. William Howard Taft served one term, and got to appoint a phenomenal 6 Supreme Court Justices. Interesting, considering that Taft was later appointed Chief Justice by Warren Harding (possibly the only good thing Harding did during his presidency). Taft followed his own appointment as Chief Justice, and initially presided over a court which still had 2 of his own appointees on it.

[Grotonian]

@LSLGuy

We could make a change today that says something like “effective Jan 1, 2035 all Justices must retire on their 75th birthday.” That would still mean the President replaces however many age off during his/her term. Which could be zero or could be nine. And nobody today could predict the makeup of the Court then or the ideology of the then-sitting President, so it’s be real hard to make a *rational *argument that enacting this change today would somehow advantage one ideology over another when it takes effect.

That wasn’t FDR’s plan.

[alphaboi867]

@LSLGuy

…We could make a change today that says something like “effective Jan 1, 2035 all Justices must retire on their 75th birthday.” That would still mean the President replaces however many age off during his/her term. Which could be zero or could be nine. And nobody today could predict the makeup of the Court then or the ideology of the then-sitting President, so it’s be real hard to make a *rational *argument that enacting this change today would somehow advantage one ideology over another when it takes effect.

Enforcing a mandatory retirement age on Article III federal judge would require a constitution amendment; 2/3rds of each house of Congress* and 3/4ths of the state legislatures** would need to go along. Increasing the size of the Supreme Court ay authorizing an additional judgeship for each judge to reaches a certain age (which is what FDR proposed) only takes an act of Congress.

*Or a national constitutional convention called by petition of 2/3rds of the state legislatures.

**Or state conventions elected for the specific purpose of ratifying the proposed amendment.

[Acsenray]

@Grotonian

The principles attacked were “Separation of Powers” and “Judicial Review.” It would have given FDR the power to name up to 6 or more justices, ensuring a far more sympathetic court for his New Deal programs. Presidents don’t get to stack the Supreme Court.

If Congress says the president gets to name up to six more justices, then the president gets to name up to six more justices. If Congress says the president gets to stack the Supreme Court, then the president gets to stack the Supreme Court. That’s perfectly constitutional.

[Saint_Cad]

@Acsenray

If Congress says the president gets to name up to six more justices, then the president gets to name up to six more justices. If Congress says the president gets to stack the Supreme Court, then the president gets to stack the Supreme Court. That’s perfectly constitutional.

Or take away Justices so the President cannot appoint any like they did with Andrew Johnson.

[Northern_Piper]

@Schnitte

It seems that many people are under the assumption that Britain is, on paper, an absolute monarchy, and that it is merely the nicety of the present Queen which prevents her from abusing powers which she could, theoretically and “technically” (a word that invariably pops up in such discussions, without it being clear what it is supposed to mean), do. This is not true. The Queen’s powers are subject to very tight constitutional limits.

That is correct. In fact, a couple of posters here on this thread appear to be labouring under this misapprehension.

@Kobal2

And the United Kingdom doesn’t actually have a constitution that would prevent a megalomaniac King or Queen from fucking shit up, nor are there any written rules or laws that would prevent Elizabeth from abolishing parties and elections tomorrow if she so wished.

Of course there are. Ever since the Case of Proclamations, it’s been clear that the Crown does not have any independent legislative powers. Whatever legislative powers the Crown may once have had have been subsumed in the legislative powers of Parliament.

Since political parties and elections are governed by statute law passed by Parliament (Representation of the People Act 1983), the Crown does not have any authority to abolish elections or political parties.

@robert_columbia

If the monarch is a reasonable person, they could take charge in a true emergency without needing to get appropriate approvals from the various government departments that ordinarily handle such things. For example, if a zombie apocalypse were to break out in the middle of London, Her Majesty could take charge, authorize the issuance of firearms to civilians, spend a million pounds in Government money to import not-yet-approved-by-the-Ministry-of-Health anti-zombification vaccine from the USA, issue guest worker visas to foreigners with ordinarily-disqualifying criminal convictions but acceptable zombie-fighting skills, and order a quarantine of the half-mile area surrounding Charing Cross without having to get all of the respective department heads, MP’s, petty officials, and whatnot to have their weeks of debate before signing off on the plan.

No. Just no. In addition to the fact that the Crown lacks any legislative powers, since the Bill of Rights of 1689, it is clear that the Crown cannot suspend the operation of any statute, nor dispense an individual from obeying a statute. As well, the Crown cannot spend public money unless authorised to do so by an Appropriations Act passed by Parliament. This implements the ancient principle of “grievance before supply”, namely that the monarch must summon Parliament and hear from the representatives of the people before Parliament will grant “supply” i.e. the money needed by the Crown to run the government.

Thus:

• if statute law restricts citizens from owning firearms, Her Majesty cannot suspend that statutory prohibition.

• Her Majesty cannot spend a million pounds of public money unless an Appropriations Act authorises that the money be spent;

• if a particular vaccine has not been approved for public use, Her Majesty cannot suspend that prohibition;

• if particular foreign nationals are barred by statute from entering Britain, Her Majesty cannot dispense them from obeying that law;

• lacking legislative powers, Her Majesty cannot impose a quarantine on her own initiative.

@Kobal2

I’m well aware of that. But absent a written law there’s not much the British public could do, legally and officially speaking, in the event that the British Crown took a more active role in the proceedings (or any other unwritten albeit traditional conventions regulating the workings of the British government), is there ? Besides going “Yer wot ? That’s not cricket !” I mean ?

Yes, of course there is. The courts are open for business and have the power to review any purported exercise of the Royal Prerogative and ensure that Her Majesty does in fact have the authority she says she is exercising. If Her Majesty is purporting to legislate, the Case of Proclamations is clear precedent for the courts to declare the royal legislation to be of no effect. If Her Majesty is purporting to suspend a law, or dispense with its operation with respect to a particular individual, the courts can declare that such measures are contrary to the statutory limits on Her Majesty set out in the Bill of Rights, and of no effect.