I didn't say it was a specific religion. I said there were religious references in the US government.
Wow. So many strawmen, so little time.
There is not a single strawman there.
Okay, let's hear your evidence and/or logical and/or legal argument for how the formation and development of the US would have been different if the words "God" and "Creator" had not been used in the DoI. I'm all ears.
You want me to predict about 250 years of history? I don't speculate when it comes to history. That is a fool's errand.
It assume that it means exactly what it says, that the King executes his supreme authority through the Ministers.
...
No, they exercise the King's authority.
So, what does that mean? Please give an example.
There is no counter-argument here, just unsupported opinion. What am I supposed to respond to?
You are not supposed to respond. Your selective quoting is obvious.
Do you, then, conceed the point that the Ministers are executing the King's authority?
I have never contested that, so there's nothing to concede.
Not read the US constitution? Of course I have. You're reading comprehension is very odd.
No, read the Danish constitution and the Parliamentary Election Act.
Is there something in the Parliamentary Election Act of Denmark that conflicts with the Constitutional Act of 1953's statement that the King holds supreme authority in the Realm? If so, which of those two documents is correct?
Just read the documents, OK? Don't skim them, read and understand them.
Okay, explain to me how "The King also has the constitutional ability to remove a Minister" is different from "The King shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and the other Ministers"? Is this losing something in translation?
Yes: Because he is dismissing the PM
and the other Ministers. The King can not dismiss just one Minister. That is made clear by §16.
What I'm seeing is multiple, not mutually excluse methods for the removal of a minister.
Seeing is not believing.
I've read what you've provided, it does not agree with what you are saying.
That's fine. Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you are right.
You've ignored what I have presented and you have the audacity to claim that I am wrong.
I have not ignored it. But tell me, how do you think you can make a case based on the facts, if you haven't read the facts?
Strawman. I didn't say the governement was elected, I said that nearly everyone in the government was elected.
Wrong again. The PM is usually chosen from the biggest party, but not always - thereby making him elected. The Ministers, however, don't have to be elected to the Parliament.
The evidence shows otherwise.
I've learned a great deal about some Americans here.
Yeah, but you didn't provide any evidence to back it up.
But you said that I hadn't addressed it:
I thought you said that only the legislative branch of your government could print money?
I made it clear that the King could mint money.
...what?
But you keep contradicting them, so which time that you have addressed this am I to believe?
Where's the contradiction?
If you want to discuss Danish democracy, and particularly the Danish Constitution, I think it would be a good idea.
eta, I've read through the constatutional act already. The Election Act is of little relevence since it concerns itself primarily with the election process rather than the roles of the different government figures. I've been skimming it, but it's rather uninteresting.
Skimming isn't the same as reading and understanding it.
eta2, and, if anything, it seems fairly obvious that the Election Act defers to the Constitutional Act in several places.
How so?
