5 starting questions about prorogation

BobTheCoward said:
Where is the prorogue procedure written?
Click to expand...

I assume it's the Prorogation Act 1867

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/30-31/81/section/1

Power to Her Majesty to issue proclamation for the prorogation of Parliament.

Whenever (save as herein-after excepted) Her Majesty shall be pleased, by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Her Majesty, to issue her royal proclamation to prorogue Parliament from the day to which it shall then stand summoned or prorogued to any further day being not less than fourteen days from the date thereof, such proclamation shall, without any subsequent issue of a writ or writs patent or commission under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, be a full and sufficient notice to all persons whatever of such the royal intention of Her Majesty, and the Parliament shall thereby stand prorogued to the day and place in such proclamation appointed, notwithstanding any former law, usage, or practice to the contrary.
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
Even the US constitution more or less just mimicked English common law of the period. A constitution is more important when you don’t have precedent to fall back on or simply want to repatriate that precedent so you are appealing to precedent in what are now completely separate countries.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
The UK’s constitution is written down too, but it’s not a single stand-alone document.
Click to expand...

This could/should easily be its own topic. I disagree, to me a Constitution is something that is harder to change and that binds the government more seriously/strictly than mere legislation. The doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy means that, no matter what, Parliament can legislate about it, change its mind, etc. For instance, the US constitution Bill of Rights prohibits government from doing things unless the Constitution is amended. The UK Parliament can legislate anything. They can pass a new law about prorogation or not, abolish the monarchy, pass a bill of attainder (prohibited in the US constitution for that reason), etc.

Or let me put it another way. Give me an example of what the UK Parliament is, constitutionally, prohibited from enacting. I mean actually prohibited, not there's a polite convention that gentlemen and women don't do that, I mean actually prohibited. Even if the UK has agreed to a treaty about something, they're free to abrogate their agreement. Even existing royal prerogatives are subject to being e.g. extinguished by Parliament.
 
epeeist said:
This could/should easily be its own topic. I disagree, to me a Constitution is something that is harder to change and that binds the government more seriously/strictly than mere legislation. The doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy means that, no matter what, Parliament can legislate about it, change its mind, etc. For instance, the US constitution Bill of Rights prohibits government from doing things unless the Constitution is amended. The UK Parliament can legislate anything. They can pass a new law about prorogation or not, abolish the monarchy, pass a bill of attainder (prohibited in the US constitution for that reason), etc.



Or let me put it another way. Give me an example of what the UK Parliament is, constitutionally, prohibited from enacting. I mean actually prohibited, not there's a polite convention that gentlemen and women don't do that, I mean actually prohibited. Even if the UK has agreed to a treaty about something, they're free to abrogate their agreement. Even existing royal prerogatives are subject to being e.g. extinguished by Parliament.
Click to expand...
Not seeing any difference if the legislate can amend and alter the constitution then it's just the same, in the end the legislate is sovereign.
 
zooterkin said:
They cannot? Who makes the Amendments, then?
Click to expand...

Anyone can write an amendment. Congress can propose an amendment for ratification by a majority vote. [ETA: The proposal has to pass with a majority vote. Ratification follows from that as a separate vote.] That proposal is then voted on by the states, who bear the ultimate authority for amending the constitution.

That said, the states do have the option of delegating their authority back to the federal legislature, and letting the legislature vote on the proposed amendment. But even this option must be triggered by the states, not by the federal legislature.

I'm not sure what "makes the Amendments" is supposed to mean. In terms of actually having the authority to amend the constitution, it's the states.

Source: 30 seconds of googling
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Anyone can write an amendment. Congress can propose an amendment for ratification by a majority vote. [ETA: The proposal has to pass with a majority vote. Ratification follows from that as a separate vote.] That proposal is then voted on by the states, who bear the ultimate authority for amending the constitution.

That said, the states do have the option of delegating their authority back to the federal legislature, and letting the legislature vote on the proposed amendment. But even this option must be triggered by the states, not by the federal legislature.

I'm not sure what "makes the Amendments" is supposed to mean. In terms of actually having the authority to amend the constitution, it's the states.

Source: 30 seconds of googling
Click to expand...
Couldn't have put it better myself: The legislature can alter the constitution.
 
Darat said:
Couldn't have put it better myself: The legislature can alter the constitution.
Click to expand...

Not by themselves, and not by simple majority. They require the approval of a thousand other people. That is the opposite of supreme.
 
Darat said:
Your quantitative rather than qualitative difference has no interest to me.
Click to expand...

Okay, qualitatively, the legislature does not possess unilateral ability to amend the Constitution. It lacks the legislative supremacy of a parliament.
 
Darat said:
Your quantitative rather than qualitative difference has no interest to me.
Click to expand...

Well, usually, or almost invariably it is way more difficult to change a constitution than an ordinary law or statute. Usually at least 2/3rds majority is needed and in some countries a new election and parliament to confirm the decision. Britain is unique in the sense that a mere plurality of the parliament is pretty much omnipotent - that's why it's sometimes half-jokingly called a parliamentary dictatorship. Also there is not a one document explicitly called the constitution but a bit of a maze of legislation and customs. Pretty far you could say the that the authority that once made Charles I to lose has now been bestowed on the parliament - or, de facto, the cabinet and PM - surprisingly intact.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Couldn't have put it better myself: The legislature can alter the constitution.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's the opposite of what actually happens. The federal legislature can propose an alteration, but only the states can actually alter the constitution. Even in the scenario where the federal legislature actually votes, they do so at the instigation of the states, using authority delegated to them by the states.

This distinction between federal and state authority is fairly important in the US system of government.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Not by themselves, and not by simple majority. They require the approval of a thousand other people. That is the opposite of supreme.
Click to expand...

Well of course a majority is not needed, only good political campaigns see prohibition as an example of something that never was terribly popular getting into the constitution by having good lobbyists.
 
theprestige said:
This distinction between federal and state authority is fairly important in the US system of government.
Click to expand...

I have to say that once I finally understood that many things have been much easier to understand. Thoug as great as your constitution was for a largely pre-urban nation finally the size of a continent, it doesn't serve you well at all these fallen days. It's outdated and non-functional.
 
llwyd said:
I have to say that once I finally understood that many things have been much easier to understand. Thoug as great as your constitution was for a largely pre-urban nation finally the size of a continent, it doesn't serve you well at all these fallen days. It's outdated and non-functional.
Click to expand...

I'm an Arizonan before I am an American.
 
theprestige said:
I'd say that's the opposite of what actually happens. The federal legislature can propose an alteration, but only the states can actually alter the constitution. Even in the scenario where the federal legislature actually votes, they do so at the instigation of the states, using authority delegated to them by the states.

This distinction between federal and state authority is fairly important in the US system of government.
Click to expand...
Everything you posted talked about the legislators being able to change whatever they wished, whenever they wished to. Exactly like the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom