• Bill

    Hey Roger & Tom,

    I found this link via Jerry Pournelle’s website (www.jerrypurnelle.com) regarding the problem in Honduras. Apparently what the president did was illegal.

    *******

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/article-239-of-the-honduran-constitution.html

    Article 239 of the Honduran constitution

    Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads:

    Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

    Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

    It’s not exactly like the U.S. Constitution, but does it violate norms of democratic republican government? I don’t think so. The problem of presidents who never leave power is all too common among undeveloped countries, so a very strict prohibition against multiple terms of office seems appropriate.

    Zelaya directly violated Article 239 by ordering an election to reform the Constitution in order to keep himself in power beyond his term of office. He was then removed from office as the Constitution of his own country calls for.

  • Techpriest

    Interesting discussion on Monarchy & Government!

    Tom’s suggestion of a dystopian sci-fi future where government is in a permament state of stasis is not entirely new:

    In the science fiction Universe of “Warhammer 40000″ is in a setting (in the 41st millenium) in which the majority of 1 Million worlds in the galaxy are ruled from earth in the name of the universal emperor, who has been kept on life-support for 10000 years in order that all the human machines and governments that rely on his existence may continue to exist- this empire is known as the Imperium of Man.

    The Imperium has a fantastically complicated government which (since the emperor’s quasi-death) has been ruled by a system of regents who carry out orders using the emperors name as their “excuse” for the enactment of power. The Most powerful body is a council of rulers known as the “high lords of terra” (encompassing representatives from the Church of the Emperor, the “Adeptus Mechanicus” scientific cult, the chiefs of the Imperial Gaurd, Imperial Navy, Navigator’s Guild, Civil Service, Space Marines, Police service), below this lies the beuracratic government of the imperium which encompasses a centralised federal government located on earth (98.5% of earths population are beuracrats dedicated to the management of the Imperium, all but the pacific ocean have been drained to make space for buildings to fit everything in). Individual worlds (outside the solar system) are ruled by governer’s who rule in the Emperors name and depending on who the governer is, either have governments were almost everything requires a referrendum to get passed, or where the government is a tyrannical maniac who uses the emperors name to rule as an absolutist.

    The result of this hugely complicated system is that if a planet seccedes from the Imperium or is invaded by an alien force, it can often take hundreds of years for the message to filter it’s way to earth and the high lords of terra (who then issue executive orders authorising the use of the military, which may have been sitting 1 or 2 systems away, mobilised but waiting for decades for the authority to launch a counter attack), by which time the rebellion has taken hold or the enemy has such a foothold that retaking the planet is hugely costly.

    The Imperium also has a habit of losing stuff, lots of stuff. In fact, the best ships in the Imperial (space) navy are the OLDER ones, as the techniques used to make their “advanced” systems are often lost in the rafts of beuracracy, so that newer ships are inferior. Furthermore, the Imperium also loses records, sometimes losing records of entire planets, so that if a planet does send a message to central command, the central government first has to work out whether the planet is real or not before replying.

    This is one possible view for a government where everything is “the 70′s” and nothing gets done, just thought i’d put it out there, since tom mentioned it, and sci-fi has conveniently, already invented it.

  • Techpriest

    Of Elective Monarchy’s, wikipedia puts forward this interesting note:

    “An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be, in effect, an elective monarch, ruling for “good behavior” (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers.[citation needed] His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection. In his later defense of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, he often hints that a lifetime executive might be better, even as he praises the system with the four-year term.”

    On the sovreignty of British Colony’s, Canada is a good case study for this sort of thing. It was (strangely) true, that until 1982, Canada (while being an obviously independent nation) was dependent on the Parliament of Westminster to pass constitutional ammendments. In 1982, this last link was severed with the passing of the parallel and identical “Constitution Act 1982″ in Canada and the “Canada Act 1982″ in Britain- this gave Canda the “right” to pass its own constitutional ammendments without the need for British approval. However, constitutional scholar’s note that since the law is dependent on the law being active in BOTH Canada and the United Kingdom, if the United Kingdom repealed the Canada act 1982, it would revert the state of affairs to one where the United Kingdom still claimed legal supremacy over Canada, and Canada would effectively be “forced” back into requiring British approval to pass ammendments.

    Further constitutional quandry’s can occur from systems which use the British Monarch as the head of state, problems which still plague Britain itself. The main issue is the use of “The Royal perogative” a series of rights which can be enacted only by the head of state, and hence the monarch. These include declarations of war, sueing for peace, the signing & ratification of treaty’s etc. The Iraq War is still quoted in Britain as an example as “an abuse” of the Royal Perogative on the grounds that the Blair government used Blairs position as EFFECTIVE head of state (IE: the true head of state could not prevent blair doing anything without causing a constitional crisis) to utilise the royal perogative to declare war on iraq without having first gone through a vote in parliament. Constituional reform is now, slowly being introduced, much of which involves the “devolving” of the royal perogative from the executive to parliament.

  • http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/ Sean O’Hara

    Tom should be thankful he has an entire continent between himself and DC — Washingtonians don’t like being told the US has no “taxation without representation.” There are a number of proposals to get DC proper Congressional representation — granting the District statehood, ceding the residential areas back to Maryland — but I think the best solution is to do the opposite: no taxation, and no representation. (Before anyone says that’s absurd, consider that that’s how we treat Puerto Rico.) The lack of income tax would draw people from the suburbs, bringing an influx of money that could revitalize the city.

  • http://tangentialconvergence.blogspot.com/ Dave Brodbeck

    I remember the partiation of the Constitution in the early 80s. The federal government went to the Supreme Court and asked if they could patriate the constitution without the approval of London. The court, if memory serves, gave the opinion that the feds could amend the constitution (The British North America Act of 1867) without the consent of the parliament of the UK, but that they should not. It turned out that of course the constitution did come home in 1982 with the approval of 9 provinces (all but Quebec).

    Changing federal institutions, which this was, now requires 7 provinces with 50 percent of the population. The exception is when there are amendments that only affect one province, such as the change in the school system in Newfoundland (from one run by churches to a provincial system in 1998) and the change of the name of that province to Newfoundland and Labrador. Amendments now also require provincial referenda, though this is not de jure required, only de facto.

    The Honduras example is interesting. I loathe the idea of the military doing what they did, but, the referendum seems to be unconstitutional. That said, what if the constitution is wrong? How would one go about changing it?

  • http://plurk.com/sebastiandavies Seb

    Just wondering, I live in England but, doesnt England aleady have a constitution, its unwritten (uncodified) but it does stuff like make sure we have a free National Health Service. And I dont mean this in an arrogant way, but the UK has free health care and USA doesnt does it(I think after watching ER you have to pay)? So maybe unwrittens better? I got a grade E (second worst) in politcs but im pretty sure a unwritten constituiton does the same to a written one!?

  • http://www.kevinarth.com/ Kevin Arth

    Hey Tom and Roger,
    I’m a long time BOL listener, but I just checked out this podcast and I love it. I didn’t go back to ep. 1 like I did iwth BOL, but I went back to the beginning of June and you have a new fan. I look forward to more great conversations.

  • http://thegentleart.wordpress.com/ Billy Kennedy

    In relation to the monarchy vs republicanism/democracy, I think it might be worth reading up on the Irish Proclomation of Independance, Irish Declaration of Independance and Constitution. These are the three documents most often cited as the three steps towards Irish independance. As a young nation (Our constitution was only enacted in 1937), it is interesting to compare and contrast the our two countries. Especially bearing in mind the fact that the man who wrote most of our constitution (Eamon de Valera [Val-Air-Ah]) was born in America.

    I bring these documents to your attention because you mentioned the Australian independence movement, when Ireland has already gone through this transition in recent times. Most of Ireland’s legal system and Civil Service were carried over from the British systems and, after a rough twenty/thirty years of transition we emerged virtually unscathed by it. However, there are still many in Northern Ireland who refuse to give up the monarchy, which is where much of the violence on the Island comes from.

    Also, in relation to immigration, Ireland just recently amended it’s constitution to make it so that people born on the island of Ireland are not automatically citizens of Ireland, unless one of the parents is proven to be Irish.

    Quite frankly the only reason I’m opposed to the current monarchy in Britain is that they are virtually powerless figureheads, nearly worse than the Irish president who is a nigh powerless head of state. Anyway, I’d recommend you flick through these documents (below).

    (In great Buzz fashion)
    Billy from Ireland

    Irish Proclomation of Independence:
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic

    Irish Declaration of Independence:
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Irish_Declaration_of_Independence
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(Ireland)

    Irish Constitution
    http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/html%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland%20(Eng)Nov2004.htm

  • Techpriest

    @seb:

    Britain’s constitution is a mix of the written and unwritten- it is not codified or defined, and is hence known as a “de-facto” constitution. On the written side it can be considered to made up of several important and key statutes, court judgements & treaties. On the (surprisingly large) unwritten side it is made up o the royal perogatives &. parliamentry constitutional convention (for example: “The Lords shall not deny supply to the commons” i.e: The upper house shall not prevent the passing of the budget or other money bills). The key principle that underlies the British constitution is the supremacy of Parliament. Britain (unlike other monarchies) does NOT recognise that parliaments power comes from the monarch, but that the parliaments sovreignty comes from the british people who support the parliament. Hence, the parliament is sancrosanct (which is why the House of Lords, which contains the law lords, is the highest court of appeal in Britain, as their judgements are final and cannot be challenged*)- its word must be taken above all others.

    However, the supremacy of parliament is slowly weakening- the Judiciary (particularly after the implementation of the contraversial Hunting Act 2004) has made comments that senior judges do not necessarily have to view parliament as sacrosanct, and with the UK’s membership of the EU, British Parliamentry supremacy is further undermigned as the EU SPECIFICALLY imposes the “Supremacy of European Law” above those of member states.

    To get to the real point: an unwritten constitution is not the reason Britain has a nationalised health service, the existence of the NHS Comes under a raft of a whole different era of politics which is a different ball-game to constitutional politics. Britain once had a privately run healthcare system too, but this was nationalised after world war 2, Canada took a slower approach, slowly bringing their health system bit-by-bit into the fold of a single-payer system, the USA did neither, and stuck with the individuals insurance system.

    *As of October 2009, the House of Lords will no longer be the highest court in the United Kingdom, as under the constitutional reform act 2005, the Law Lords (who are already appointed under an independent system) will be shifted and become the first 12 justices of the “Supreme Court of the United Kingdom” which will for the first time provide a single supreme court that can rule over the entirity of the union (previously the only supreme courts in existence were the individual supreme courts of scotland, Northern ireland, and the combined England & Wales supreme court). This reform was done as part of an effort to split the legislature from the judiciary, and did come under heavy critiscm when first proposed on the grounds that if it followed an American model of the head of state appointing justices, it could become subject to party politics and hence corrupt, as a result the supreme courts appointments are to be made by the same independent body which currently appoints the law lords.

  • Techpriest

    @Dave Brodbeck

    The question is whether that portion of the (Honduran) constitution can actually be changed. Certain post world war 2 constitutions (particularly the constitution of the Republic of India) contain “unammendable” clauses. The previous Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi did attempt to ammend some of these unammendable clauses, largely unsuccesfully (student strikes & riots resulted, a national emergency was declared for 2 years (which is now viewed as an abuse of power through article 352 of the constitution). If the Honduran president was attempting to ammend a similarly unammendable clause, it makes sense that the army & the people would attempt to stop it (not saying they went the right way about it, of course, just saying that their actions could be somewhat explain-able).

    Also good to hear an inside canadian view on the patriation of the constitution. My knowledge, of course, is largely slanted towards the British view, so it’s good to see the other side. Another interesting quirk of the constitution is that Canada sort of took a middle road between the USA’s fixed and codified constitution and the UK’s entirely unwritten one. Canada’s constitution is a mix of both, with the British North America Act 1867 as a foundation, with several acts later made, until 1982, when several acts (including the BNA 1867) were “defined” as the constitution and as such needed to pass the ammendment formula to get changed. This semi-organic, semi-codified approach does seem to be a good way of bridging the divide between written & unwritten.

    Canada also has, somewhat unlike the US, a “living tree” principle of constitutional interpretation that “The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.” This is known as the Doctrine of Progressive Interpretation. This means the constitution must be viewed in context with the state of Canada at the time, rather than a fixed & absolute statute.

  • Techpriest

    Just saw this, a few policies of the former Rhinocerous party of canada, a political satire party, thought we needed a bit of light hearted fun in this discussion, so here goes, below are some of the policies of the former party:

    # Repealing the law of gravity
    # Declaring war on Belgium because a Belgian cartoon character, Tintin, killed a rhinoceros in one of the cartoons
    # Offering to call off the proposed Belgium-Canada war if Belgium delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to Rhinoceros “Hindquarters” in Montreal (the Belgian Embassy in Ottawa did, in fact, do this)
    # Providing higher education by building taller schools
    # Tearing down the Rocky Mountains so that Albertans could see the Pacific sunset
    # Making Montreal the Venice of North America by damming the St. Lawrence River
    # Annexing the United States, which would take its place as the third territory, after the Yukon and the Northwest Territories (Nunavut did not yet exist) in Canada’s backyard, in order to eliminate foreign control of Canada’s natural resources
    # Storing nuclear waste in the Senate. “After all, we’ve been storing political waste there for years.”
    # Making the Trans-Canada Highway one way only.
    # Changing Canada’s currency to bubble gum, so it could be inflated or deflated at will.
    # Counting the Thousand Islands to see if the Americans have stolen any
    # Putting the national debt on Visa

    Satire is fun :)

  • Matthew

    I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention the excellent Reith lectures that have been going on from 1948 and have had on are Bertrand Russell, Robert Oppenheimer, and others. I have found them to be thought provoking but in an UK/European way.
    The current one is done by Professor Michael Sandel a professor in Harvard school of government. He is talking on the title “A New Politics of the Common Good”.He is hitting some interesting points in regards to morality and the need to have public debates that includes people’s ideas of morality, good and bad. Have a listen and tell me what you think.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lb6bt

    Also on another topic it was interesting listening to some historians speak on the troubles in the Middle East and that it is mainly due to the colonialist way that UK and France (later the US) worked out the settlement of the lands in the middle East when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. I realized that really UK France and the USA have no moral authority to say anything against the people that the current Israelis forced out. That is all of them gave the Jews the land when it had people living many hundreds of years previously. If any had a shred of decency they will open their doors to all the refugees that was created from their actions in Israel. That is all the Palestinians should be given the opportunity to settle in either the USA, UK and France given they are the countries that made them the way they are.

    An interesting tip bit, the greatest development of the car bomb was done in the Palestine region. The interesting bit is that it was the Israeli “terrorists” (I hate this term as it is so loaded but I wanted to use it to contrast with the current depiction of the Palestinians) who were the main developers of its use. They used it to attack Christians and Muslims and Jews that were getting along with each other.

    In regards to the topic of monarchy and constitutions I want to say the following;
    1. Monarchs or Kings had the concept of divinity long before the christian concept as seen by the Egyptians with their God Pharaoh concept or Romans and their Deified Emperors, Chinese emperors who at the same era as the roman were spoken of as Son of Heaven, etc. Its also an interesting concept of having a king without the divine right to rule but I can’t think of a single kingdom that was set up that way. Also I would suggest that the perception of the masses of the Kings/Emperors/Czars were that they were for them while the nobles oppressed them. It was a system of oppression as all the people thought they needed to do was to get word to the king when the oppression was at its worst and the king would do something. Usually they would as it was a method of releasing pressure within society but the king would never do anything that was more than piecemeal as at the end of the day the King was a part of the elite.

    2. Personally I hate this concept that there is some group of people that is not accountable to the public making laws that change the way that my elected officials can govern for me. That is the concept of a Bill of Rights. It doesn’t seem to do anything other than make lawyers rich as it has not upheld ‘rights’ as can be seen by the supreme court deeming slavery legal or segregation legal or internment camps legal. It also gives the farcical situation where in Canada a potential female firefighter couldn’t do the entry requirements to be a firefighter had the courts rule that the requirements infringed her rights. That is even though she personally could not do the job as set out in the requirements they had to give her the job and change the requirements so that she could get in.

    There is also the issue of a Bill of Rights getting people thinking in terms of their rights and never thinking about their responsibilities and duties. They both go hand in hand but no one wants to be told what their duties are as it sounds like they are required to do anything.

  • Matthew

    In regards to the US citizens still been subjects to the crown, I think you would be other than the fact that King George consented to all the US colonies leaving and so was no longer bound by the allegiance to the Crown. The subject of the Crown can’t change the fact they are a subject of the crown unless they gain independence from the King but even then the King is acknowledging they are independent or otherwise they would just be subjects that are treasonous.

  • Matthew

    Sorry for the many posts but I have been busy at work so couldn’t.

    I just wanted to say that
    a) Micheal Jackson was brilliant at been a musician and entertainer and also a sad individual with almost every other part of his life been broken. I always figure that for someone to be in the top 10% let alone the best requires so many sacrifices of other facets of their life they might have ruined them. A Partner at a big law firm told a group of graduates that there was four aspects to life, family, friends, health and career. He then said that if you try to do all of them you they will be done in a mediocre fashion and if you sacrifice one of them then you can be good on three of them and if you sacrifice another then you will be better at the remaining ones and then he stated to be brilliant at it you need to sacrifice all the other aspects to one. This is remembering that the Partner was speaking to people who already had been vetted to ensure they had the skills and ability to do the job.

    I think Michael Jackson ended up, either through his father’s pressure or his own, to sacrificing all other aspects than his career, his music.

    b) Star Trek and counselor Troi was interesting in that I note that the great conflicts with the Romulans and the other races was due to them not accepting that the Federation had all the answers that they claimed to have.

  • http://tangentialconvergence.blogspot.com/ Dave Brodbeck

    @Techpriest, the Rhinos were awesome in the day. Indeed they actually got enough votes in 1979 and 1980 to qualify for free time from the CBC. Their ads were awesome. I remember them saying they would freeze the St. Lawrence for a big hockey game, and they would switch things up so that vehicles went on sidewalks and people on the roads, but they would phase it in, only busses would make the switch in the first year…. They also said if they ever won a seat they would sell it to the highest bidder.

    On the constitution thing, the thing many Canadians do not realize is that on matters constitutional, things that happened before 1982 in other Westminster parliaments act as precedent in Canada.

    On Honduras, yeah, changing that part of the Constitution is illegal, but, I do not like the armed forces ever playing a political role. It is like cops making law.

  • Matthew

    On the subject on why we get screwed by politicans and companies is set out by columnist that I read regularly. He is an economist but don’t worry he used to be an accountant :p

    http://business.smh.com.au/business/pay-attention-or-be-bamboozled-by-bread-and-circuses-20090707-dbrz.html?page=-1

    Basically he is goes through the reasons why we don’t get change and that is mainly due to the lack of attention we pay to such things as politics or items that we buy.

    In regards to Sarah Palin I personally think that she left now due to a party political push. That is it gives the new guy some time in the job and so will then get all the advantages of been the incumbent when he needs to face his first election. If she stayed to the end both party’s candidates will not have the advantages of incumbency and so will work from the same level playing field.

    I personally find the feminist hatred of Sarah Palin interesting in that she should be a poster child for them in that there is a woman that is a success in her field and has a family and the husband is the one staying at home taking care of the family situation. Its just that she does not follow the same leftist views they have. Personally I thought that feminism is neither left or right but about equality and giving women choice to do what they want to do.

  • http://tangentialconvergence.blogspot.com/ Dave Brodbeck

    I simply despise Sarah Palin due to her anti intellectualism.

    I am not fond of her politics, but arrogant, sniveling, divisive and haughty are hardly qualities I respect or would want in a leader, no matter their politics.

  • sdf

    Sarah Palin is stupid. Not an valid argument of any kind, but it happens to be true.

  • Great American

    >>>>
    I simply despise Sarah Palin due to her anti intellectualism.

    I am not fond of her politics, but arrogant, sniveling, divisive and haughty are hardly qualities I respect or would want in a leader, no matter their politics.
    >>>>>
    Sarah Palin is stupid. Not an valid argument of any kind, but it happens to be true.
    >>>>

    As opposed to navel-gazing effete intellectuals?

    Tell us how you really feel…

  • Great American

    Sarah Palin is stupid? Please explain WHY you think she is stupid? How is it “true” in your estimation sdf?

    I can say that you’re a poop-head without knowing that you have/do not have excrement on your cranium. How fair and reasonable is that?

    Yes her use of syntax is wanting and most people judge intelligence on how well people speak. I have to ask you: Does a strongly opinionated woman who decides to focus on her family repulse you?

  • sdf

    ”Does a strongly opinionated woman who decides to focus on her family repulse you?” This is classic rhetorical misdirection. I have no idea what argument you “think” you’re debating.

  • Techpriest

    @Great American, please calm down, and use sensible language, i note that until you came into this conversation, the thread was calm, sensible, and one of a light hearted debate. Sarah Palin is a current issue, i give you that, and sdf’s use of “stupid”, while indicative of many peoples opinion, was fairly likely to ignite one such as yourself to start flaming- that doesnt give you the right to use offensive language as well as ruin a perfectly good discussion.

    Before you started commenting (IE, above your posts) you will find discussions on constitutional theory, monarchy, the middle east, the legality of military involvement in honduras, the issue of taxation without representation as well as a little satire courtesy of the Rhinocerous party of Canada. You however, chose to sully a debate with such language as “poop-head”. Furthermore your reasoning is off balanace and lacks direction, one minute your complaining about sdfs use of “stupid” the next about a “strongly opinionated woman who decides to focus on her family”- where the heck is your debate train headed?

    East Meets West is a refuge from those like yourself who reduce debates to simplistic flame wars filled with nasty language- i think i speak for myself and quite a few others when i say i (and we) would like to keep it that way. Discuss Sarah Palin all you wish, but please keep it sensible and clean. If you’re wondering how to judge something you’ve written, just ask yourself if its the sort of thing Tom & Roger would feel comfortable reading out on the show, i think you’ll find the majority of the comments in this thread are, why don’t you do what the rest of us do, if you wish to flame, there are plenty of IRC rooms and forums for you to play out democrat VS republican or mac VS PC in simplistic flame war terms, EMW, is not one of them.

  • http://tangentialconvergence.blogspot.com/ Dave Brodbeck

    She (Ms. Palin) does not believe in evolution, man made climate change or that work on fruit fly genetics has value. That should be enough to point out her anti intellectualism.

    I will not comment on the ‘effete’ statement. I have no idea what it refers to.

  • http://Twitter.com/BretMyers Bret

    Hey Tom,

    Quick note. You may not feel that the 5th Amendment applies much (quartering soldiers). But in the electronic age, I feel it is important that this extend to not housing Gov’t software on my computer. Be it spyware, or something that makes it part of a botnet. This hasn’t proven to be a concern, yet, but it is worth keeping as mind as electronic warfare becomes a norm.

    Related: Accusations that Green Dam was to be a National Botnet.

  • Great American

    TechPriest,

    I appreciate your thoughtfulness if not for the condescending tone. Thanks for the lesson. A piece of advice: brevity is the soul of wit.

    Dave,

    effete: ” having lost character, vitality, or strength” Basically ad hominem attacks are weak. You say you despise Palin which is fine but you do no better than “I despise her”.