Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Reg Grundy35]

Do you really think that changing the ultimate head of the nation from a king to a president in any way would change the current state of global economic crisis, mounting xenophobia, and the growing international rise of fascist political tendencies?

The policies of the Albanese goverment follow the international trend of growing attacks on democratic rights and ballooning spending on the military along with cutbacks to essential social spending (hospitals, schools etc)

Albanese, and his loyal opposition (Dutton) are being driven by the imperatives of a global crisis.

This crisis will not differentiate between PM Albo or President Albo.

i believe you made the claim that a republic would be detrimental to the working class? I asked "How do you know that?"

Thanks for the waffle above but you could explain how getting rid of the english monarchy and appointing an Australian head of ste would be detrimental to the working class. you made the claim not me. Not necessarily improving things is hardly the same as "being detrimental". What would the working class in Australia lose is we gave the royals the boot?

 

[IlovethePies]

i believe you made the claim that a republic would be detrimental to the working class? I asked "How do you know that?"

Thanks for the waffle above but you could explain how getting rid of the english monarchy and appointing an Australian head of ste would be detrimental to the working class. you made the claim not me. Not necessarily improving things is hardly the same as "being detrimental". What would the working class in Australia lose is we gave the royals the boot?

Reg, this is the last time I will post on this thread, because I don't view it to be a significant issue.
However, you have misrepresented what I said, so before I say adieu I will set the record straight.
I said that the conversion of Australia to a republic would be just as detrimental to the working class as keeping the status quo.

This means: it does not matter whether Australia becomes a republic or not. Either option is equally detrimental to the conditions of the working class.

I hope this sets the record straight.

And now, adieu.

For reasons I think are now clear, I believe that this thread is not focussed on a topic that has any genuine significance.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Reg, this is the last time I will post on this thread, because I don't view it to be a significant issue.
However, you have misrepresented what I said, so before I say adieu I will set the record straight.
I said that the conversion of Australia to a republic would be just as detrimental to the working class as keeping the status quo.

This means: it does not matter whether Australia becomes a republic or not. Either option is equally detrimental to the conditions of the working class.

I hope this sets the record straight.

And now, adieu.

For reasons I think are now clear, I believe that this thread is not focussed on a topic that has any genuine significance.

wonder why he came in here? the heading couldn't be clearer. Came in to point out that the topic was insignificant to him. takes all kinds

 

[Roylion]

I'm waiting for someone to make an intelligent case for kissing the arse of a foreign king and having his flag stuck on ours.

I've explained why I prefer a constitutional monarchial system to that of a republic.

 

[Spirit Level]

today. I am embarrassed to have some pom dickhead on our coins.

Lol you still use coins?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Lol you still use coins?

No - and that's why!

 

[Number37]

I've made it clear that the monarch must act on the receiving of formal advice from their ministers


That's not what the constitutional experts say

Once again...

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, British political scientist, historian and research professor
"When ministers offer advice to the sovereign, that advice is binding and the sovereign has normally no option but to accept it."

Constitutional expert Anne Twomey made the distinction between formal advice and informal advice

"The critical difference between formal and informal advice arises due to the application of the principle of responsible government ... when formal advice is given to the head of state by responsible ministers, the responsibility for the actions taken by the head of state pursuant to that advice is transferred from the head of state to the relevant ministers […] When informal advice is given, however, there is no obligation to act upon it and there is no shift in responsibility for the actions undertaken."

Sir William Heseltine, Private Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II stated that:

"Whatever personal opinions the Sovereign may hold or may have expressed to her Government, she is bound to accept and act on the advice of her Ministers."

In regards to royal assent Herbert Asquith, wrote to King George V

"It is to act upon the advice of the Ministers who for the time being possess the confidence of the House of Commons, whether that advice does or does not conform to the private and personal judgement of the Sovereign. Ministers will always pay the utmost deference, and give the most serious consideration, to any criticism or objection that the Monarch may offer to their policy; but the ultimate decision rests with them; for they, and not the Crown, are responsible to Parliament."

Anne Twomey says that refusal of royal assent..."could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts."

In other words, royal assent must always be given, except in cases where courts could not deal with any breaches of the constitution by the government and even then only to uphold constitutional principles. It can't be withheld because the monarch personally disagrees with the policy.




The monarch is constitutionally bound to accept formal advice.




Who?

Here's what some constitutional experts have said about the monarch rejecting the advice of his ministers.

Sir Vernon Bogandor says the consequence of the monarch rejecting formal advice “would be the resignation of the government. The consequence would be to put the sovereign in a position in which he or she was opposed by one of the great parties of the state. No constitutional sovereign can survive for long once he or she comes to be seen as a partisan."

Anne Twomey considered that was "most unlikely to occur in practice" In other words the monarch would not reject formal advice from their ministers.

Reginald Baliol Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher and courtier to George V wrote
"If the Sovereign believes advice to him to be wrong, he may refuse to take it, and if his minister yields the Sovereign is justified. If the minister persists, feeling that he has behind him a majority of the people’s representatives, a constitutional Sovereign must give way."

Harold Nicholson wrote in 1952

"when [the monarch] feels the advice given him is either dangerous or opposed to the wishes of the people as a whole, [the King] is to insist that the Cabinet shall furnish him with that advice in written form so that he also may have the opportunity of recording, in writing, that he follows that advice with misgiving and reluctance."

In other words the monarch knows he MUST follow the formal advice of his ministers.




A Prime Minister (and therefore his or her government) can be dismissed by the monarch, although this last occurred in 1834. In the UK this can only be done if that Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and refuses to resign as a result. The monarch is hence not bound to act on the advice of a person who has ceased to be a responsible adviser. Responsible advisers are those ministers who hold the confidence of the lower House of the Parliament and who are responsible to the people through the Parliament for the advice that they give to the monarch or her vice-regal representatives (say in Australia).

The decision by the monarch to remove a Prime Minister (and hence the sitting government) can only occur in the event of the above situation.



The monarch can only summon, prorogue or dissolve Parliament on minsterial advice. See above for what happens if a PM has lost the confidence of the lower house of Parliament.


The monarch cannot ignore advice from responsible advisers who have given formal advice to the monarch. Informal advice can be ignored.

Constitutional experts say a lot of things.

In ALL constitutional cases experts on 1 side say X and experts on the other side say the opposite of X. ( as they are paid to do).

That's how the legal system works. Each side presents their own arguments. BOTH sides are represented by experts.

You think that by cherry picking experts who say what you want, somehow that is the ONLY answer.


Like I have tried to explain to you a million times.

It has never been tested. So any arguments are theoretical at best.

A govt, a parliament ONLY has the power that a constitution vests in it.

A govt, a parliament is wholly bound by the constitution that grants them the power to be govt or to act as a parliament.

The monarch, on the other, is not bound by any of that.

The monarch sits outside the constitution.

If Royal assent was mandatory then there would be no need for a parliament to wait for a Bill to be granted Royal assent.

There is a reason that Bills require Royal assent. The monarch is not just a rubber stamp.

The reasons that a monarch is not just a rubber stamp harks back to days long gone, most notably the time of King John and the Magna Carta, which is universally acknowledged as the beginnings of the 'rule of law'.


Critical thinking requires you to consider all arguments, not just the one that suits you.
Any idiot can cut and paste crap that supports their POV at the same time as ignoring any other POVs.

 

[Roylion]

Constitutional experts say a lot of things.

You claimed

"Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."

Who? Which constitutional experts?

In ALL constitutional cases experts on 1 side say X and experts on the other side say the opposite of X. ( as they are paid to do).

Yes, but which ones say "that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff." That was your claim. How do you know this?

You think that by cherry picking experts who say what you want, somehow that is the ONLY answer.

Give me some Constitutional experts that support what you claimed.

A govt, a parliament ONLY has the power that a constitution vests in it.

A govt, a parliament is wholly bound by the constitution that grants them the power to be govt or to act as a parliament.

I've never claimed differently.

The monarch, on the other, is not bound by any of that.

That is not correct. As I have explained already. We're not dealing with absolute monarchy that claims divine right to rule and can do anything they like. They clearly cannot and haven't been able to do so since at least 1689. As I have explained.

The monarch sits outside the constitution.

The monarch is bound by the consititition. The monarch is a constitutional monarch.

If Royal assent was mandatory then there would be no need for a parliament to wait for a Bill to be granted Royal assent.

The constitution says royal assent is required.

There is a reason that Bills require Royal assent. The monarch is not just a rubber stamp.

The monarch must follow formal advice given by his/her responsible ministers. I've demonstrated that clearly.

The reasons that a monarch is not just a rubber stamp harks back to days long gone, most notably the time of King John and the Magna Carta, which is universally acknowledged as the beginnings of the 'rule of law'.

That is not correct. The rule of law did not begin with the Magna Carta (the Articles of the Barons) in 1215. The barons were not interested in civil rights. Neither were they thinking of the peasantry who made up 80% of the population at the time, as they were not free men and therefore it did not apply to them. Its purpose was to protect the nobility from the King. It didn't create much that was new but rather declared existing laws and usages.

Critical thinking requires you to consider all arguments, not just the one that suits you.

Oh please. You don't show any critical thinking. You make these sweeping generalised statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever and somehow you regard yourself as some great critical thinker that supposedly considers all sides of whatever argument you're espousing. You don't. You come to some sort of conclusion based often on muddled thinking or an incomplete knowledge of the subject matter and somehow think you're right. You don't even know what the Magna Carta actually is.

Any idiot can cut and paste crap that supports their POV at the same time as ignoring any other POVs.

Yes O great one. Of course you've researched what you're talking about and come to a considered conclusion.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You claimed

"Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."

Who? Which constitutional experts?



Yes, but which ones say "that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff." That was your claim. How do you know this?


Give me some Constitutional experts that support what you claimed.


I've never claimed differently.



That is not correct. As I have explained already. We're not dealing with absolute monarchy that claims divine right to rule and can do anything they like. They clearly cannot and havent been able to do s since at least 1689. As I have explained.


The monarch is bound by the consititition. The monarch is a constitutional monarch.


The constitution says royal assent is required.


The monarch must follow formal advice given by his/her responsible ministers. I've demonstrated that clearly.


That is not correct. The rule of law did not begin with the Magna Carta (the Articles of the Barons) in 1215. The barons were not interested in civil rights. Neither were they thinking of the peasantry who made up 80% of the population at the time, as they were not free men and therefore it did not apply to them. Its purpose was to protect the nobility from the King. It didn't create much that was new but rather declared existing laws and usages


Oh please. You dont show any critical thinking. You make these sweeping generalised statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever and somehow you regard yourself as some great critical thinker that supposedly considers all sides of whatever argument you're espousing. You don't. You come to some sort of conclusion based often on muddled thinking or an incomplete knowledge of the subject matter and somehow think you're right. You don't even know what the Magna Carta actually is.


Yes O great one. Of course you've researched what you're talking about and come to a considered conclusion.

Good to see no one's getting personal. We might need a mod to step in.

 

[Number37]

You claimed

"Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."

Who? Which constitutional experts?



Yes, but which ones say "that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff." That was your claim. How do you know this?


Give me some Constitutional experts that support what you claimed.


I've never claimed differently.



That is not correct. As I have explained already. We're not dealing with absolute monarchy that claims divine right to rule and can do anything they like. They clearly cannot and haven't been able to do so since at least 1689. As I have explained.


The monarch is bound by the consititition. The monarch is a constitutional monarch.


The constitution says royal assent is required.


The monarch must follow formal advice given by his/her responsible ministers. I've demonstrated that clearly.


That is not correct. The rule of law did not begin with the Magna Carta (the Articles of the Barons) in 1215. The barons were not interested in civil rights. Neither were they thinking of the peasantry who made up 80% of the population at the time, as they were not free men and therefore it did not apply to them. Its purpose was to protect the nobility from the King. It didn't create much that was new but rather declared existing laws and usages.


Oh please. You don't show any critical thinking. You make these sweeping generalised statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever and somehow you regard yourself as some great critical thinker that supposedly considers all sides of whatever argument you're espousing. You don't. You come to some sort of conclusion based often on muddled thinking or an incomplete knowledge of the subject matter and somehow think you're right. You don't even know what the Magna Carta actually is.


Yes O great one. Of course you've researched what you're talking about and come to a considered conclusion.

Still don't get it, do you.

You fail to understand that the expert opinions that you provide are just that, opinion.
If a monarch decides to play by their own rules, nobody knows what will happen.


You still continue to propagate the nonsense that 25 barons turned up to Runnymede and convinced King John to back down. Because you suck at history, you continue to fail to tell the whole story. The whole story is that King John was a prat, who took on everybody (the church, the people, the Barons) to assert his 'divine right of a King'. He got his arse handed to him in each of those fights.
If you had any idea of what happened you would understand that the 'rule of law' is not about civil rights specifically, but about the primacy of the law, over everyone and everything. Nobody is above the law. Nobody includes the King.
Because the King is not above the law, he can't willy nilly decide whatever the hell he wants. This doesn't bestow any specific civil right on the people, it just means that the people, like the King, are subject to the law, as it stands.
The law, as it stands, is critically important to how the entire judicial system operates. The law, as it stands, is a very important component of the 'rule of law'. The law, as it stands, means that a law cannot be made and then applied retrospectively. For a person to breach a law, that law has to have been in effect at the time the alleged breach of that law took place. That is what King John tried to do, he made new laws and attempted to apply them retrospectively. He tried the same shit with the Church, the people and the Barons.
So when you say that the people got nothing out of the Magna Carta, you are talking shit.
Cut and pasting things you fail understand is your M.O.

 

[Roylion]

Still don't get it, do you.

You fail to understand that the expert opinions that you provide are just that, opinion.

Opinions from constitutional experts who work and involved in the field. Where are the experts supporting your claim.

If a monarch decides to play by their own rules, nobody knows what will happen.

We do know what will happen. I've given you some examples. A monarch MUST take advice from his responsible ministers.

You still continue to propagate the nonsense that 25 barons turned up to Runnymede and convinced King John to back down.

They sure did.

Because you suck at history, you continue to fail to tell the whole story. The whole story is that King John was a prat, who took on everybody (the church, the people, the Barons) to assert his 'divine right of a King'.

I'm very aware who King John was. As I've said, I've read several scholarly works on his life and times and have several biographies of John and his family in my possession.

John and Pope Innocent III fell out over the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury after Hubert Walter's death. When Innocent placed England under Interdict which meant that priests could not conduct religious services, John seized the lands of members of the church who had fled England. Eventually the Pope and John negotitated a deal and the Pope became a firm supporter of John for the rest of his reign.

John imposed several innovative but unpopular financial measures to raise money to repay his own debts, garnered trying to reclaim his lands in France as well as that of his elder brother. Hence John fell out with many of his barons.

If you had any idea of what happened you would understand that the 'rule of law' is not about civil rights specifically, but about the primacy of the law, over everyone and everything. Nobody is above the law. Nobody includes the King.

Yes? I'm well aware of what the 'rule of law' is.

Because the King is not above the law, he can't willy nilly decide whatever the hell he wants.

Well done. Hence the monarch is a constitutional monarch. He is subject to the constitution and he is constitutionally bound to offer royal assent on the advice of his responsible ministers. As I have been saying.

For a person to breach a law, that law has to have been in effect at the time the alleged breach of that law took place. That is what King John tried to do, he made new laws and attempted to apply them retrospectively.

Got any examples of these 'new laws'?

He tried the same shit with the Church, the people and the Barons.

Do tell. What details?

So when you say that the people got nothing out of the Magna Carta, you are talking shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. The 1689 Bill of Rights is far more important.

Cut and pasting things you fail understand is your M.O.

Ironic coming from someone who just makes things up.

 

[Number37]

Opinions from constitutional experts who work and involved in the field. Where are the experts supporting your claim.

I thought you were talking about experts in a different field.

We do know what will happen. I've given you some examples. A monarch MUST take advice from his responsible ministersa. You ha vent given anything...except to say "we dont now waht will happen.

No, we don't know what will happen because it has never been tested.

You are once again demonstrating the absence of even the most basic critical thinking.
The monarch, has the personal prerogative power, to go against advice.
Unsurprisingly this means that no, the monarch doesn't have to follow advice.

You don't know what you are talking about. The 1689 Bill of Rights is far more important.

You are clearly incapable of understanding the difference between a specific right and the 'rule of law'.

 

[Roylion]

I thought you were talking about experts in a different field.

Still waiting for you to present "lots of constitutional experts" that "would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."

No, we don't know what will happen because it has never been tested.

It won't be. The monarch is constitutionally bound to follow the formal advice of his / her responsible ministers. The monarch is a constitutional monarch.

You are once again demonstrating the absence of even the most basic critical thinking.

You continually claiming this does not make it true. You don't show any critical thinking. You continual;y make sweeping generalised statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The monarch, has the personal prerogative power, to go against advice.
Unsurprisingly this means that no, the monarch doesn't have to follow advice.

You haven't given any evidence that supports this. I've given you at least four scholarly opinions from constitutional experts that the monarch does indeed have to follow formal advice.

You are clearly incapable of understanding the difference between a specific right and the 'rule of law'.

I understand very well what the 'rule of law' is. You don't understand what the Magna Carta is, nor do you have any idea of what came before the Magna Carta.

 

[schneebly111]

King John

Archbishop of Canterbury

Hubert Walter

It’s Australia 2024. How is this relevant?

 

[Roylion]

It’s Australia 2024. How is this relevant?

Go back and read the conversation. You'll notice the term 'Magna Carta'. It wasn't brought up by me.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

It’s Australia 2024. How is this relevant?

exactly . it's archaic bullshit which Roy thinks is better than what many successful republics around the world can do. Of the 56 nations in the Commonwealth, 41 are already republics.Im sure their news papers arent as filled with crap about which royal wives aren't talking to each other.

 

[Roylion]

exactly . it's archaic bullshit which Roy thinks is better than what many successful republics around the world can do.

Yep. The system of hereditary constitutional monarchy is in my view better than that of a republic. I've made my opinion clear and explained the reasoning for that in detail.

Im sure their news papers arent as filled with crap about which royal wives aren't talking to each other.

That's merely a sideshow drummed by a hyperbolic media hungry for celebrity news in order to sell papers and generate clicks. Its a bit like the AFL media over-analysing any small incident in football as they search relentlessly for the next great narrative to magnify and dramatise. Social media adds further to the hyperbole.

Most of it not really to be taken seriously.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Yep. The system of hereditary constitutional monarchy is in my view better than that of a republic. I've made my opinion clear and explained the reasoning for that in detail.


That's merely a sideshow drummed by a hyperbolic media hungry for celebrity news in order to sell papers and generate clicks. Its a bit like the AFL media over-analysing any small incident in football as they search relentlessly for the next great narrative to magnify and dramatise. Social media adds further to the hyperbole.

Most of it not really to be taken seriously.

But it is. Wait till the King drops in next time ; people embarrass themselves falling all over them and bowing and scraping. I go out on a limb and suggest you'll be one of them? . even worse if the latest glamour royal graces us with her presence. Its a national self-humiliation.

 

[Number37]

Still waiting for you to present "lots of constitutional experts" that "would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff."


It won't be. The monarch is constitutionally bound to follow the formal advice of his / her responsible ministers. The monarch is a constitutional monarch.


You continually claiming this does not make it true. You don't show any critical thinking. You continual;y make sweeping generalised statements without any supporting evidence whatsoever.


You haven't given any evidence that supports this. I've given you at least four scholarly opinions from constitutional experts that the monarch does indeed have to follow formal advice.


I understand very well what the 'rule of law' is. You don't understand what the Magna Carta is, nor do you have any idea of what came before the Magna Carta.

It is up to you to substantiate what you are saying.
I don't need to disprove what you are claiming.
The only evidence that you have adduced is opinion.
O
P
I
N
I
O
N

Just because you put the word 'scholarly' in front of the word opinion doesn't make the word opinion any different, you know that right?
"scholarly opinion". LOL

How the hell you can claim that their opinion is right is just you making shit up.

 

[Number37]

I understand very well what the 'rule of law' is.

Yeah nah.
Dunning-Kruger is all that you know very well.

You don't understand what the Magna Carta is, nor do you have any idea of what came before the Magna Carta.

That's hilarious coming from someone who says the peeps got no rights from the Magna Carta.

In Bancoult (No. 2) the dissenting judges argued that "no freeman shall be....exiled.."
"No freeman shall be ....exiled..." comes from the Magna Carta.
The case was about the expulsion of the Chagossians from Diego Garcia.

Another part of that case was about the judicial review of prerogative powers.
If you can't understand simple things, then you won't understand what that means.
In short, prerogative powers are that special that they are not subject to judicial review.

An Australian example would be the GFC stimulus cases.
The govt used the nationhood power to provide stimulus to the people.
Mr Williams challenged the validity of the stimulus, arguing the govt had no such power.
The HC found in favour of the govt, ie in times of crisis the govt does have the power to give money to the peeps to stimulate the economy.
(Money Bills, Bills that appropriate Commonwealth revenue are special, the govt can't ordinarily hand money out willy nilly).


Another example is indefinite detention.
The govt uses a prerogative power to circumvent the requirement that a person cannot be indefinitely detained.
For a long time the HC agreed that the govt does have the prerogative power to circumvent a writ of Habeas Corpus.

An exercise of prerogative power would be impossible to stop on constitutional grounds.


What opinion are you going to dress up this time as definitive proof?

 

[Number37]

That is not correct. The rule of law did not begin with the Magna Carta (the Articles of the Barons) in 1215. The barons were not interested in civil rights. Neither were they thinking of the peasantry who made up 80% of the population at the time, as they were not free men and therefore it did not apply to them. Its purpose was to protect the nobility from the King. It didn't create much that was new but rather declared existing laws and usages.

Who knew that Blackstone got it so wrong!!!


The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land … The laws of England are … extremely watchful in ascertaining and protecting this right. Upon this principle the great charter has declared that no freeman shall be disseised, or divested, of his freehold, or of his liberties, or free customs, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (The Legal Classics Library, 1765) Book 2.


King John would be proud of your efforts to make shit up as you go along Roylyin'.

 

[Roylion]

Yeah nah.
Dunning-Kruger is all that you know very well.

Ahh. Your new buzz-phrase.

That's hilarious coming from someone who says the peeps got no rights from the Magna Carta.

I quite clearly said in 1215, the 'people' received no rights from the Magna Carta.

Historian Simon Schama wrote that Magna Carta was not the birth certificate of freedom but rather the death certificate of despotism.

In Bancoult (No. 2) the dissenting judges argued that "no freeman shall be....exiled.."

I've explained already to you what was meant by 'freeman' in 1215.

The Magna Carta dealt with the long standing grievances of the barons, limiting the King’s rights in specific areas of feudal taxation and administration. It benefited the Church and the highest ranking in society. In 1215, the peasantry who made up 80% of the population at the time, were not 'free men' and therefore it did not apply to them. "Free man' was not accepted in 1215 as meaning the common person. Put simply, a "free man" in the 1200s, referred to workers who weren’t bound to a particular lord

Dr Claire Breay, lead curator of Medieval manuscripts at the British Library says that the reference to free men did not mean everybody.

Another example is indefinite detention.
The govt uses a prerogative power to circumvent the requirement that a person cannot be indefinitely detained.
For a long time the HC agreed that the govt does have the prerogative power to circumvent a writ of Habeas Corpus.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 established that the authority of the monarch was not in itself justification for imprisonment. And this originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 in the reign of Henry II.

In short, prerogative powers are that special that they are not subject to judicial review.

This is increasingly a matter of debate. Anne Twomey says whether the judicial review of prerogative powers is contentious. She says that in Australia courts have long claimed the power to determine the existence and extent of a prerogative power. Section 75 of the Constitution states that the High Court of Australia has jurisdiction to review the legality of the exercise of executive power by any officer of the Commonwealth.

In the UK the prerogative of mercy for example, could be the subject of judicial review. If say, the Home Secretary, as an officer of the Crown exercising the prerogative, had refused to pardon someone solely on the grounds of their sex, race or religion, the courts could be entitled to intervene.

An exercise of prerogative power would be impossible to stop on constitutional grounds.

Parliament certainly exercises prerogative power.

 

[burge13]

But it is. Wait till the King drops in next time ; people embarrass themselves falling all over them and bowing and scraping. I go out on a limb and suggest you'll be one of them? . even worse if the latest glamour royal graces us with her presence. Its a national self-humiliation.

I woke up in a cold sweat last night. Absolute night terrors, worst ever. As I came to, I realised it was because the HOS wasn't born here!

You are right, we need to fix this immediately, it changes EVERYTHING. Just affects so much in our daily lives from pictures on money to the odd article on news websites.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I woke up in a cold sweat last night. Absolute night terrors, worst ever. As I came to, I realised it was because the HOS wasn't born here!

You are right, we need to fix this immediately, it changes EVERYTHING. Just affects so much in our daily lives from pictures on money to the odd article on news websites.

for someone who doesnt give a you've sure hung around

 

[burge13]

for someone who doesnt give a you've sure hung around

I thoroughly enjoy the anger and lack of reasoning on your behalf