“Disestablish” doesn’t mean “abolish”. It means “Make it not the established national church”.
You know how the US constitution says that we shouldn’t have an established religion? The British constitution says the opposite–that the Anglican church is the official national church. And it goes back to Henry VIII.
It’s partly been done already. The Church of England in Wales was disestablished by the 1914 Welsh Church Act.
There is no law, at least any law that can be formally cited and referenced. It’s just The Way Things Are Done ™. The Queen also is nominally the top judge in her courts, so any proceeding brought in her own courts could legally be squashed by her. She does not do this because she knows that if she did, there would be a major, major political crisis.
The rule in the USA is that power is formally defined and apportioned, and if you have the legal power you might as well use it. This is not the UK way. The UK government exists on a fine balance of de jure power held by aristocrats and others who are expected to look nice, nod approvingly, shake hands, and sign documents, and de facto power which is exercised by (legally powerless) democratically-elected “advisors”.
There was an incident in the early 17th Century where James I and VI tried to become more directly involved in judicial rulings, claiming that it was an ancient function of the King of England to be a judge - and that all judges in England were simply recipients of his delegated power.
I believe there was a bit of a constitutional scuff about that but the judges rules that the power of the King to rule directly had fallen into desuetude.
I wonder what the viewpoint committed to opposing this policy would be called?
At the risk of being accused of floccinaucinihilipilification, I can totally see where you’re going with this.
Strictly speaking, the British constitution says nothing, because it isn’t written. And there are those in the CofE who insist on the continuity of the church in England from the days when there was only one, the discontinuity in the ultimate temporal authority over the church being a minor detail…
This post made me very happy.
Well, on the subject of the Church offending the public enough to want its disestablishment, there’s rumblings this very week:
People want to ban bishops from House of Lords over ‘evil’ gay marriage decision
Is the Queen the titular head of Anglican communities in other countries, such as the Episcopalians in the US?
No.
No, that would be the Archbishop of Canterbury.
As I understand it, the Anglican Communion recognises Canterbury as a spiritual leader and not much more, as the current row demonstrates.
It looks a bit like the Commonwealth: a forum for networking and mutual support and assistance, based on a common history and (supposedly) principles but without much if any authority by one member over another.
Canterbury has neither administrative nor spiritual authority in the Anglican Communion, just a “precdence of honour” as first among equals. He issues the invitations to the Lambeth Conference, and he’s the ex officio president of the Anglican Communion Office, which acts as the permanent secretariat of the Anglican Consultative Council. But the Anglican Consultative Council, as the name suggests, has no actual authority, and so heading up it’s permanent secretariat is not a position of authority either.
He does a good deal of cheerleading in the Anglican Communion, but outside of the Church of England he can’t tell anyone what to believe, or how to act.
No, that would be the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[/QUOTE]
No, the Archbishop is not even the titular head of the other churches. The Anglican Communion, like the Orthodox Churches, is based on the principle of autocephalism, or local autonomy. Each national church is independent of the others, and Canterbury has no position in the other churches.
As far as I have been able to document the Crown hasn’t refused its approval of an act of Parliament since Queen Anne. But, one of the charges leveled against George III in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is that he had refused to give his OK to laws that the Americans wanted. So I don’t know what to believe.
But, at any rate, once Charles is on the throne I suspect that the PM and the Cabinet aren’t going to be allowed to ramrod their appointees down his throat the way they have with his mother, and Charles just may decide to exercise the royal veto when it comes to issues that are near and dear to his heart.
Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to judge the law and the facts of any case over which the federal judiciary has jurisdiction. Thus the Court has the power to determine what the law means, so it does have the enumerated power to declare laws constitutional or unconstitutional.
Colonial governors appointed by the King (on the advice of his ministers) refused assent to bills passed by colonial legislatures. And of course the Prime Minister will allowed to “ramrod” appointees down King Charles III’s throat; if he tries to exercise the royal veto the most likely result is that his role in appointments would be abolished and/or he’d be compelled to abdicate.
This has no basis in fact, precedent or sanity.
I think you’ll find that Queen Victoria learnt, very early on her reign, that she couldn’t override her PM on appointments much closer to her than appointments in the church, the judiciary or the military. The question would not arise.