*shrug* whatever
Yes. That doesn't preclude religion to permeate the US government.
But religion has no offical capacity in the US government and any attempts to do so are stopped by the courts.
Are you saying that the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with how the US looks today? It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever?
It has historical relevence only.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that historians were to uncover that the text of the DoI that we currently know of was only a draft of a later version that was actually sent to King George and was the actual DoI. It would be great historical significance, but would have no effect on the modern government.
The reason for this is that the DoI is a dead document. It isn't currently in effect. It is defunct. It has no effect on the government system.
No, not "agents". The Ministers are elected by the people. The King can't tell the Ministers to do anything.
Does your constitution say the following?
Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitutional
Act, the King shall have supreme authority
in all the affairs of the Realm, and shall exercise
such supreme authority through the Ministers.
Is the definition of "
agent" the following?
1 : one that acts or exerts power
2 a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle
3 : a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result
4 : one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent> b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : SPY <secret agent> c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical agent>
From these two passages, is it not reasonable to say that those through which the King exercises his supreme authority would be the King's "agents", i.e. one who exerts the King's power? Are the Ministers not the ones who exerts the King's power? Are the Ministers not, then, the King's agents?
That's because you don't understand the part that you left out of your quote.
Why did you leave out the last part? You kinda "skipped" that question.
I understand it just fine. You're the one who can't seem to understand what his own constitution actually says. Let's review.
CFLarsen said:
What part of "and shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers" don't you understand? Why did you leave it out?
The full passage is as follows:
Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitutional
Act, the King shall have supreme authority
in all the affairs of the Realm, and shall exercise
such supreme authority through the Ministers.
Read that passage. Who does it say has supreme authority in all the affairs of the the Realm, not who
enacts that authority but who has
ownership of it? The King or the Ministers?
I've addressed that "skipped" line plenty, but I had left it out in that particular argument because how the authority is enacted was irrelevent to who actually owned the authority.
Do you understand that this executive authority is exercised through the Ministers? Not "agents" but people elected by popular vote?
Just because the people elect the Ministers does not mean that the Ministers aren't exercising the King's authority.
Like I explained, we have several documents. You need to educate yourself. You can't get a 15-second rundown on Danish Democracy. This isn't a TV-nation, where everything is broken down into soundbytes.
Yes, we have several documents, as well. However, if there is any conflict between those documents, the US Constitution is the authoritative document against which all other US documents must concur or conceed to.
It was my understanding that you had told me that the Constitutional Act of 1953 was the same kind of authoritative document for your country (I can find your exact quote, if you like). Is this not the case?
Then, why do you claim that the King can dictate what the Ministers do? He can't - you just admitted this.
I did not say the King can "dictate" what the Ministers can do. I said, as your constitution does, that the King exerts his authority through the Ministers. The King also has the constitutional ability to remove a Minister.
The King of Denmark does not have the same powers as your President. You really, really have to understand this.
So you claim, but your constitution says differently. Heck, the powers and limitations you list in
this post are very similar to those of our President, with the obvious exception that there are no religious requirements for our President and that our President is elected.
Not in its entirety, no, but I'm not disputing that just about everyone in your government except you King is elected.
No, not just the PM. The King can dismiss the entire government. But what happens then? A new election is called. And that's it: If the King chooses to do this, all he gets is a new parliament, one that the people decide. He won't get a parliament of his own choice.
And, I can assure you, if the King does this, the King will be deposed. It will probably be the end of the monarchy. We would never stand for such an action.
So you say, but that still doesn't mean that it is not within the King's authority to do so.
There you go: The King does not control Parliament.
Just like our President.
It is clear to me that you have yet to educate yourself on Danish democracy. Every candidate runs in a district ("valgkreds").
Which, of course, was not my point of confusion. My point of confusion was of whether or not the King has a vote, but that is neither here nor there.
Also, it is just as clear to me that you have yet to educate yourself on American history, society, and government.
No, not "delegates". That implies that the King does it even though he doesn't have to. Which is wrong.
There is your sense of "right" and "wrong" again. Let's refer to your constitution:
§ 18
Should the King be prevented from holding a
Council of State he may entrust the discussion of
any matter to a Council of Ministers. Such Council
of Ministers shall consist of all the Ministers,
and shall be presided over by the Prime Minister.
§ 25
The King may, either directly or through the relevant
government authorities, make such grants
and grant such exemptions from the statutes as
are either warranted under the rules existing before
June 5, 1849, or have been warranted by a
statute passed since that date.
And, wow. The more I dig through this thing, the more things I find that the King may or has to play an active role in the government. I thought you said that only the legislative branch of your government could print money?
§ 26
The King may cause money to be minted as provided
by statute.
This is, of course, unless you've changed your mind again about whether or not the Constitutional Act of 1953 is the authoritative document of your country.
