- Paris time
- sam
- = Samedi / Saturday 25.II.2023
- dim
- = Dimanche / Lord's Day 26.II.2023, Quadragesima
- sam 15:37
- from Hans Georg Lundahl
- to James Bogle
- You recall how you argued using the withholding or royal assent was in your view a kind of rebellion?
What Happened The Last Time The Monarch Vetoed A Law?
J. Draper, 23 Jan. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy36g9ocE7s
It was done in 1937 and 2001. Canada and Oz ...
Like the presidential assent under Art. 13.3 of the Irish Constitution, it does not present any kind of real assent (or dissent) but is a mere certification that the Bill has passed through the Houses of Parliament. That is all.*
The example of 1937 seems to say the opposite.
I looked up 13.3.
1° Every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas shall require the signature of the President for its enactment into law.
2° The President shall promulgate every law made by the Oireachtas.
The second very explicitly makes the first a formality.
The one thing a president could do would be to abdicate in order to avoid assenting. But that, even in Ireland, he could.
- * Note
- cited from his wall.
- dim 10:44, 10:59, 11:15
- from James Bogle
- to Hans Georg Lundahl
- I am not sure what you are trying to argue, Hans-Georg, but you need to get your facts straight.
First, the Irish president has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does. That is precisely why I drew the parallel. All you have done is reinforce my point. If you read my articles you would see that I quoted the relevant article of the Irish Constitution verbatim. You are not the only person who "looked it up". I did so before you.
The President can resign if he wishes but that will make no difference at all. Another President will simply be elected and he will certify. Just as the British Monarch certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses, so does the Irish President. He has NO discretion to withhold his "assent" because it is not an assent in the sense of a free discretion but no more than a certification that the Bill has passed both Houses, i.e. the exact same mere duty to certify that the British monarch has. There is no difference between them save that the Irish president does have the power to refer a bill to the Irish Supreme Court to decide its constiutionality a power that the British monarch does not have because we have no written constitution and no constitutional court.
Get your facts straight, sir.
As to 1937 and 2001, perhaps because you are Germanic, you do not understand the relationship between the Crown and other member states of the Commonwealth.
Australia and Canada are not part of the United Kingdom. They are separate, free and independent countries and they both have written constitutions.
My comments relate only to the United Kingdom.
In Australia and Canada, the Monarch has even less power than in the UK i.e. none at all. All the powers of the head of State are exercised by the Governors and Governors-General and in accordance with a written constitution which, in turn, is subject to a constitutional court in both countries.
In the case of australia, in 200, all that the Governor-General was doing was withdrawing a certification that the bill had passed both Houses for the simple reason that it had NOT so passed. That is not exercising a free assent or anything like it. It is preu certification, exactly as I adumbrated it.
In Canada, the Lieutenant-Governor was exercising a power given to him by the Constitution of Canada and thus DOES entail some free exercise of discretion.
But that is a power of the lieutenants-governor of Canada, not the British monarch. The British monarch has ZERO power to veto Canadian legislation.
If you think she has, then you need to read the actual sources of constitutional law, rather than relying upon an amateur Youtube production.
Although the production is accurate in parts, it is quite inaccurate to say that the British monarch retains a power to refuse assent. He does not. It is no longer part of his constitutional power and all constitutional authorities agree on that.
The only exception - and most authorities agree on this - is that he may veto a bill that attempts to abolish democracy. That is a vitally important power. If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone, he could have vetoed Hitler's seizure of power and abolition of democracy and forced him to an election. World history might then have been very different.
You would have done better to cite the example of Australia in 1975. In that year the Governor-General sacked the Prime Minister, not for attempting to abolish democracy, but merely for attempting govern without supply (i.e. money voted in), it having been blocked by the Upper House.
But the Australian Governor-General has MUCH more power than the British monarch does.
Indeed, the Australian Constitution gives the GG real power to refuse assent and veto legislation.
Indeed, the Constitution gives the British monarch power to veto legislation (ss.58-60). However, it is now a matter of constitutional convention that such power no longer exists and in the Common Law system, constitutional conventions have the full force of constitutional law.
What the true position is as regards the GG will be a matter for the constitutional court to decide, ultimately, i.e. the High Court of Australia.
What we DO know is that the GG has power to sack the PM and government under ss.57 because he did so in 1975, the decision went unchallenged in the High Court and the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, had already given his view that it was constitutional, in an Opinion commissioned by the Governor General before he acted.
The sacked PM tried to consult the Queen but her private secretary wrote back saying that it was entirely a matter for Australia and the Queen had no power to intervene.
Accordingly, as I argued, the British monarch has no power anywhere to veto legislation, save in the vital exceptional case I mentioned.
Ergo.
- dim 13:24
- from Hans Georg Lundahl
- to James Bogle
- "First, the Irish president has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does."
He explicitly as per the second part of 13.3 has no such right. So, if he would want to refuse, his one constitutional option would be to step down and say "look, I am no longer president, signing that is not my job" ...
On top of that, I find "no more ... than" misleading. It's more proper to speak of "a lot less than" ... I have seen no British legislation amounting to that second part of 13.3.
"That is precisely why I drew the parallel. All you have done is reinforce my point."
Except that the parallel doesn't hold in the absence of a similar text in the English law. 1967 there was a new royal assent act, what it definitely didn't change was the nature of royal assent by adding a "13.3 part 2" clause. It only changed how the monarch was able to express his assent.
"If you read my articles"
I read only one of them. "James Bogle: was Queen Elizabeth to blame for the Abortion Act?" on Rorate Caeli. That one didn't quote 13.3, since an F search on "13." gave nothing.
"The President can resign if he wishes but that will make no difference at all. Another President will simply be elected and he will certify."
First, the one who has resigned will have cleared his conscience.
Second, the election campaign could involve debates that might end up nullifying the proposal.
"Just as the British Monarch certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses, so does the Irish President. He has NO discretion to withhold his "assent" because it is not an assent in the sense of a free discretion but no more than a certification that the Bill has passed both Houses, i.e. the exact same mere duty to certify that the British monarch has."
That is no doubt your opinion, but I don't think there is a law to that effect.
On parliament . UK I found an informal text stating that the assent "is considered" a formality, i e backing your view, but weakly, as this may simply be a bad habit.
"save that the Irish president does have the power to refer a bill to the Irish Supreme Court to decide its constiutionality a power that the British monarch does not have because we have no written constitution and no constitutional court."
If you have no written constitution, and no constitutional court, that makes the proposition that "royal assent is a formality" very moot. In 2001 in Australia, it was used on that precise point, to recapitulate skipped formalities, but in 1937, in Canada, there were three laws that were blocked by the refusal of royal assent, because the royal assent was used in lieu of a constitutional court - the Lieutenant General deemed it unconstitutional to legislate:
- for banks to be controlled by local government;
- for papers to be obliged to print rebuttals required by the government against stories they didn't like.
Two withheld royal assents for the first type of proposal and one for the latter.
"As to 1937 and 2001, perhaps because you are Germanic,"
Are you Welsh or Gaelic? Otherwise you are as Germanic as I. Norse and Anglo-Saxons are very close culturally when starting out in history.
"Australia and Canada are not part of the United Kingdom. They are separate, free and independent countries and they both have written constitutions."
And their written constitutions, while putting royal assent in other hands than that of the actual monarch, give it a content, in at least Canada other than as formality?
A UK constitutional lawyer might argue in favour of the Canadian model rather than the Australian one, should it be a simple formality "down under". I perfectly got the memo that the Australian case would fall within your view of "royal assent" = "vetting of formalities" ...
"But that is a power of the lieutenants-governor of Canada, not the British monarch."
Was this already the case in 1890 or so? The year when Ottawa voted that infamous duty for Amerindians and Esquimeaux to send children to residential schools? Back in 2013, I debated against Annett, that he'd be wiser to sue Ottawa than the Crown. Back then I just assumed that the Monarch really had no power whatsoever, was not even aware of royal assent. I'd be happy if I didn't make a fool of myself in saying "Ottawa is more to blame than Balmoral, and Methodists more than Catholics" (while Catholics administered Residential schools, at one point they tried to save a girl from TB, and were stopped by Canadian authorities, and Catholics did not administer forced sterilisations, unlike Methodists, Calvinists, United Church of Canada) ..
"then you need to read the actual sources of constitutional law,"
Which are available where?
"and all constitutional authorities agree on that."
Including texts that do not exist?
"If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone,"
Jews in the Germanies have suffered in two circumstances. a) Alemannic area (mostly very pro-Jewish these days); b) periods of unrest - First Crusade, and two periods without a German King. Rex Rintfleisch and Hitler had that in common.
However, the problem in 1933 was not abolishing democracy. I e multipartisan parliamentarianism. They did that in Austria too with much better results, initially backed against "Rintfleisch II" by Il Duce, who later, unfortunately, in 1938, greenlighted Hitler's second attempt against the "second but better German country" ...
"However, it is now a matter of constitutional convention that such power no longer exists and in the Common Law system, constitutional conventions have the full force of constitutional law."
Well, the problem is - do such conventions actually oblige? I recall a statement in a novel by GKC - "keep the commandments, break the conventions" ...
- dim 18:21
- from James Bogle
- to Hans Georg Lundahl
- You are merely repeating yourself and your arguments do not improve with repetition. Certifying that a Bill has passed both Houses IS precisely the job of the Irish President and he should not shirk it. What is NOT his job is to claim the right to veto a Bill. He has no such power.
I frankly don’t really care what YOU “find” since you are not an expert on the British or Irish Constitutions. The fact you think the British Constitution is a creature of legislation shows how little you understand it. The fact that you think the British Constitution is to be found in “a similar text in the English law” shows that you have no understanding of the British Constitution.
The British Constitution is governed chiefly by conventions, not statute. And you can stop kidding yourself that you have read the entire statute book of British legislation – it would take half a lifetime to do so. So, stop pretending.
It is a very long-standing convention of the British Constitution that, like Article 13.3 of the Irish Constitution, every Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Parliament shall require the Royal Assent for its enactment into law and the Monarch shall promulgate every law made by both Houses of Parliament (or of the lower House alone, where the Parliament Acts are properly invoked).
Where do you think the framers of the Irish Constitution got the idea for Art 13.3 from, for goodness sake? From their former Anglo-Irish monarchical Constitution, of course. Where else?
So, I was entirely right, and remain right, to say, as I did, the Irish President has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does. Fact. Get used to it.
Your ramble about the 1967 Act again shows that you simply do not understand the nature of the British Constitution. I repeat: it is chiefly a creature of convention, not statute. If you don’t understand this then further discussion is pointless because you simply do not know what you are talking about – literally. There is no need to “add a 13.3 part 2 clause” by statute because it is already established by convention.
If you have only read one of my articles then read the others. You might then begin to have some idea what you are talking about.
Possibly the most stupid form of argument is to say “well, I read one of your articles and X did not appear in that one”. The obvious retort is “well, then, read the other ones, you great clot!”.
Surely you can do better than that? And, in any case, you’ve heard the arguments now.
You then repeat your original failed argument and, as I said, your argument does not improve with repetition. No, an Irish President who resigns will NOT “have cleared his conscience” since his conscience is not engaged when he certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses. There is nothing immoral in certifying such passage. It is a morally neutral act and thus does not engage his conscience. It would only engage his conscience if he had the discretion to veto a Bill but, for the third time, he does NOT have such a power.
On the other hand, he would have created a wholly unnecessary, damaging and pointless constitutional crisis by resigning and would have failed in his duty, something that no responsible president should do. And, no, the election of a new president will not make any difference to the Bill which, having passed both Houses, would, by the Constitution, HAVE to be certified by the incoming President.
And, no, this is not merely MY opinion but the opinion of the British and Irish constitutional authorities as you would know if you knew anything about them which you so obviously don’t. Indeed, I cited some of them in footnote 7 to my Rorate Caeli article which you obviously failed to see.
Instead, you merely again publish your total ignorance of the nature of the British Constitution by ignorantly saying “I don't think there is a law to that effect” when, if you had any idea what you are talking about, you’d know that the Constitution is not chiefly a matter of law but of binding convention.
You have found that the Parliament website backs my view but, as if you were some kind of expert (which manifestly you are very far from being), you pretend that you are in a position to call this “weak”. If you had read the constitutional authorities, you would know that it is simply fact and not “weak”.
With even more profound ignorance of the British Constitution, you next claim that because Britain has “no written constitution, and no constitutional court” that this “makes the proposition that ‘royal assent is a formality’ very moot”. No, it does not. That is the very ill-informed and ignorant opinion of someone who knows very little about the British Constitution. Constitutional conventions are recognised as binding by the British Crown, the British government, the British Parliament, the British courts and the British people - and that is enough.
You then repeat your failed arguments as regards Australia and Canada in 1937 and 2001 both of which I have rebutted and you have not even addressed. Merely repeating your failed arguments does not improve them and so I merely refer you back to my rebuttal of them.
And the head of a province in Canada is called a “Lieutenant Governor” not a “Lieutenant General”. Get your facts straight, sir.
And whether you regard yourself as Germanic, or not, you have as little understanding of the British Constitution as do most persons of non-British origin. The Norse are equally, for the most part, unfamiliar with the British Constitution. You are no exception.
If you knew anything about the British Constitution, you would have read the relevant authorities and would know that no UK constitutional lawyer would be stupid enough to argue that the British Constitution is the same as the Canadian Constitution on the issue of the royal assent. That is the sort of non-argument that a Norseman ignorant of British constitutional convention might try to argue. Whatever “memo” you might think you “got”, it was clearly not a memo that had anything to do with the British Constitution, given your woeful ignorance of that same Constitution. And, as a result, you have very successfully “made a fool of” yourself. And, in case you have overlooked the fact, we are living in 2023 – not 1890.
You then ask some questions which underscore, if there were still any scintilla of doubt, that you have not the faintest clue what you are talking about and have no idea whatever about the nature of the British Constitution and constitutional conventions.
Your response to my pointing out the simple fact that a German King, even with no more than the power of the British monarch, could have stopped Hitler from abolishing democracy (which he certainly did) is so ramblingly incoherent that it does not merit a response.
Finally, that you need to ask whether constitutional conventions “actually oblige” proves even further how little you know about the British Constitution.
If, however, you think that a novel by G K Chesterton is the final arbiter to interpret the British Constitution then your reliance on an amateur Youtube presentation by a lady in a fake Greek helmet holding a broom, in place of a trident, seems entirely apposite tothe kind of material that you seem to prefer as your sources rather than the real constitutional authorities. It perhaps explains your serious inability to understand even the basic elements of the British Constitution.
- dim 19:20
- from Hans Georg Lundahl
- to James Bogle
- "What is NOT his job is to claim the right to veto a Bill. He has no such power."
I did not claim he did. That's where 13.3 is explicitly different from what is explicitly stated in English laws, as many as I have been given access to.
"I frankly don’t really care what YOU “find” since you are not an expert on the British or Irish Constitutions."
No, I am on the subject an amateur moderately knowledgeable. It was actually only through your essay (which I found last year) that I even found out there was such a thing as royal assent.
"The fact you think the British Constitution is a creature of legislation shows how little you understand it."
I think the entire legal system of all of the Commonwealth is based on both written laws and precedent.
1708 and 1937 certainly do give precedent for withholding royal assent at discretion.
But 1937 was another country? Yes, but in for instance trust law, you can invoke with some discretion, precedent in other countries, obviously as long as they don't contradict either written law or precedent in your own.
"And you can stop kidding yourself that you have read the entire statute book of British legislation – it would take half a lifetime to do so."
Never claimed that. Only claimed to have one specific knowledge of two statutes that relate to royal assent. 1541 and 1967.
If you know of another statute that absolutely nullifies what I observed, fine, produce it.
"Where do you think the framers of the Irish Constitution got the idea for Art 13.3 from, for goodness sake? From their former Anglo-Irish monarchical Constitution, of course. Where else?"
Or, from one specific understanding of it. An anti-monarchic one.
"So, I was entirely right, and remain right, to say, as I did, the Irish President has no more right to refuse legislation than the British King does."
I still think "no more" should be vastly improved to "lots less" - that's still some, as he could abdicate.
"If you have only read one of my articles then read the others. You might then begin to have some idea what you are talking about."
Which one should I start with?
"The obvious retort is “well, then, read the other ones, you great clot!”."
I am fortunately a foreigner who doesn't know the exact nuance of "clot" ... and again, the obvious retort to that is, which one should I start with?
Where do I find them? Do you have a blog of your own, or do you exist in the blogosphere only as contributor to Rorate Caeli?
"No, an Irish President who resigns will NOT “have cleared his conscience” since his conscience is not engaged when he certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses."
I thought you were a lawyer, not a moralist ...?
You pretend to have some monarchist loyalties, are you aware there was a bill where a king of Belgium or a Prince of Luxemburg (forget which) actually did abdicate for a day to avoid signing it?
"On the other hand, he would have created a wholly unnecessary, damaging and pointless constitutional crisis by resigning"
Stability of régime is a higher obligation than all content in laws and what the régime actually does? Doesn't sound Catholic to me. I think Carlists and Falangists both rejected that in 1936, for instance.
"And, no, the election of a new president will not make any difference to the Bill which, having passed both Houses, would, by the Constitution, HAVE to be certified by the incoming President."
W a i t ... even if he were elected on the promise of not doing that? Sounds like you have very little grasp on the concept of epikeia.
"Indeed, I cited some of them in footnote 7 to my Rorate Caeli article which you obviously failed to see."
It so happens, as I recall it, the article was cluttered with footnotes. Each of them prone to contain quotes. Made reading the footnotes somewhat of a chore. But perhaps being readable (to other than a specific corps d'expertise) is not a top priority to you as a writer ...
"you’d know that the Constitution is not chiefly a matter of law but of binding convention."
A very good question for moral theology is "when is a convention binding" ... I think I'll try to seek answers in Escobar or Aquinas before consulting you. Just as a matter of my Catholic taste.
"You have found that the Parliament website backs my view"
Not entirely:
Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.
UK Parliament Site information Glossary Royal Assent
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/
The sentence "nowadays this doesn't happen" is clearly weaker than "has the right to refuse" ...
I think I'll finish this round here. Where an actual source proved you wrong.
- added
- 22:23
- Went after footnote 7, as you mentioned it.
Ah, there is after all an exception:
The exercise of the Royal Assent is not purely formulaic in the sense that the Crown, acting on the advice of ministers, might, in very rare circumstances (e.g. a minority government, or a colonial or devolved government), theoretically be advised to withhold assent but such a situation is highly unlikely. What we are considering here is not such a scenario but rather the Crown refusing assent against the advice of ministers or acting alone. That, it is agreed by the relevant constitutional authorities, would only be lawful in the situation where the whole Constitution were about to be vitiated e.g. by extending the life of Parliament indefinitely or gerrymandering the electorate so that the government could never be ousted – that is to say, permanently destroying democracy. Otherwise, the Monarch, acting alone, no more has such veto power than do any of his subjects.
Erskine May, Thomas, - a Whig
Bagehot, Walter, - a Liberal
The remainder would be moderns who presume that the Whig and the Liberal got it right.
- dim 23:40
- from James Bogle
- to Hans Georg Lundahl
- Given that you are not a lawyer, let alone a British lawyer, let alone a British constitutional lawyer (as I am), you again simply succeed in making a fool of yourself. I am not interested in debating with someone who can only argue by repeating his nonsense again and again in the vain hope that it will somehow improve with repetition.
So this is the last time I shall be responding to your pointless repetition. It seems clear that you have some kind of autism because you seem incapable of even hearing arguments that you do not like or do not agree with and so you just ignore them, repeating your errors again and again.
I have told you before, and do so now for the last time, that the British Constitution is governed chiefly by convention rather than statutes. But for you to claim that it is not “explicitly stated in English laws, as many as I have been given access to” is simply ridiculous. You think that an understanding of the British Constitution is limited to what you “have access to”? That is sheer nonsense.
And, no, you are not “an amateur moderately knowledgeable” on the subject nor anything close to it. You have revealed this by your basic and elementary errors. The fact that you only found out about Royal Assent through my essay also proves this. Een British school children know about Royal Assent.
If you think that the British Constitution is “based on both written laws and precedent” then you further advertise your ignorance.
The Constitution is not primarily based upon law or legal precedent but upon convention which develops over time and is very different from what it is was in1708 as even a 4th form constitutional law student could tell you.
For the very last time, what happened in Canada in1937 has nothing whatever to do with the exercise of Royal Assent in Britain. Canada is a separate country and has a written constitution. The British monarch has no power over it and it is the Lieutenant Governors and Governor-General who exercise such reserve powers under the Canadian Constitution, not the British monarch.
Have you finally got that?
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
To compare constitutional convention with trust law (and I am also a Chancery lawyer dealing with trusts) is, once again, to advertise your extensive ignorance of the British Constitution. There is no comparison. You are simply talking complete nonsense.
You said “I have seen no British legislation amounting to that second part of 13.3” which is quite clearly your inferring that you have read the entire corpus of British statute law since otherwise you could not possibly know that there was nothing like Art 13.3 in it. You could not possibly have read the whole corpus, so your response was ridiculous. Sheer nonsense.
Neither did you claim to be limiting yourself to two statutes that relate to royal assent, 1541 and 1967. You are now making things up to cover the sheer nonsense of your earlier claim.
For the very last time, the British Constitution is governed by convention, not statute law. Asking for “another statute that absolutely nullifies what I observed” shows conclusively that you have simply not yet understood this but are, instead, simply ignoring what is being said to you, like some autistic child. Convention is not statute law and you will not find all the conventions comprehensively contained in any statute law.
Have you finally got this?
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have completely failed to understand the British Constitution.
It matters not whether the framers of the Irish Constitution were anti-monarchic since the issue at stake here is the same for a republic as it is for a monarchy. It is a matter of historical fact (and anyway obvious from the Article) that the framers got the idea of presidential assent from the Anglo-Irish Constitution that preceded the Free State and later republican constitutions. You again advertise your ignorance in not knowing this.
You next seem to be claiming that there is a difference between the Irish President resigning and the British monarch abdicating. This has but to be stated for its obvious absurdity as an argument to be fully demonstrated.
You also totally fail to address the argument.
For the last time, there is no issue of conscience either for the Irish President or the British monarch in certifying that a Bill has passed both Houses. It is not immoral to do so. The action is morally neutral. Neither of them has a power of discretion to exercise a veto and so there is no moral issue at stake.
Have you finally got this?
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have completely failed to understand the British Constitution.
What was done by King Baudouin was done in Belgium not the UK, even if you were unaware of it. Your assumption that the Belgian and UK constitutions are identical is yet more evidence of your total ignorance of the British Constitution. They are far from identical. There is no provision in the British Constitution for the Monarch to abdicate for a day, nor is there any need for him to do so.
For the last time, the British King has no discretion to exercise a veto over legislation. Having no such power means that the issue is not a moral one. No-one can be held morally responsible for exercising, or failing to exercise, a power he does not have. One does not need to be a professor or Moral Philosophy to understand that.
Have you finally got this?
You keep ignoring this like some sort of autistic child.
The fact that you still have not got it proves conclusively that you have not only completely failed to understand the British Constitution but you seem incapable of understanding basic morality, either.
And, no, I do not “pretend” to have monarchist loyalties – I openly avow them and always have done.
Furthermore, I do not regard Falangism as the last word in either morality or constitutionalism, even if you do. But you have once again completely failed to understand not only the British Constitution but basic and fundamental morality.
Ends do not justify means – basic morality.
One may not do evil that good may come of it – basic morality.
To breach the Constitution is a grave evil. Since the British Monarch does not have any power to veto legislation, if he were to attempt to do so then he would be breaching the Constitution, staging a coup d’état and would be attempting to rupture and destroy that same Constitution.
That would be a very grave evil since the King, of all people, must obey the Constitution. Even if he thought good would come of it (which it would not since it would not prevent the Bill becoming law and would only rupture the Constitution pointlessly), he may not do evil that good may come of it.
If this doesn’t “sound Catholic” to you then you clearly do not understand Catholicism.
As to ἐπιείκεια or epikeia (equity, fairness or reasonableness, from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) I have a much better grasp than you do since I do not confuse the principles of equity with those of constitutional convention as you do.
Equity cannot be used by a court (or anyone else) to amend a morally neutral constitutional convention – at least not in England. Even in countries with a written constitution, the latter can only be amended by the rules contained within it.
So, in Ireland a presidential, candidate can promise what he likes at the election, he will not be able to change the Constitution save by a referendum held in accordance with the Constitution itself.
Epikeia will not allow him to change the Constitution on his own authority. Thus, once he becomes President he will be obliged to certify the Bill regardless – unless and until a referendum changes the Constitution (and it is highly unlikely that Art 13.3 would be changed anyway since it works perfectly well).
But thank you for admitting that you were either too dull or too lazy to bother to read the footnotes to my article. Perhaps you will try harder next time?
When a convention is binding is not a matter for moral theologians but for constitutional lawyers and depends upon each country’s own constitution. This seems to be a point you find beyond your ability to grasp.
Finally, you have found no authoritative source at all to contradict what I have told you.
The Parliament web site itself has no expertise to be the last word on constitutional convention and does not claim it. Indeed, it expressly denies it.
But in any case it does not claim what you think it does. First, it expressly states that Royal Assent is a “formality” and secondly when it says “the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament” it means agreement to certify that the Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament, not moral agreement to the content of the Bill as to which the Monarch has no power at all.
When it says that “the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent” this, today, means that he has the right not to certify a Bill as having passed both Houses if, as a matter of fact, it has not passed both Houses, not that the Monarch has a moral right to refuse agreement to the content of the Bill.
Your example from Australia in 2001 is a case in point. The Governor-General withdrew “assent” because it transpired that the Bill had not passed both Houses and thus he could not, and should not, have certified it as having done so. That is what is there meant by refusing “assent”.
The source of constitutional authority is not the Parliament web site but, as is testified to by those authorities I cited in footnote 7, the British Crown, the British government, the British Parliament, the British courts and the British people and the content thereof is set out in the scholarly authorities that I cite.
You have now looked at one of them and found – as if it were a novelty – that there is one exception.
Indeed, there is – the very exception that I told you about. Clearly you were, once again, not listening when I told you but had your head buried in the sand.
Refusal of assent on the advice of ministers (which in our Constitution means “on the orders of” since the Crown is always obliged to follow such “advice”) again means the Monarch has no discretion and is thus merely certifying - a morally neutral act.
As to the Monarch acting on his own discretion, the author states the exception just as I did: “What we are considering here is …the Crown refusing assent against the advice of ministers or acting alone. That, it is agreed by the relevant constitutional authorities, would only be lawful in the situation where the whole Constitution were about to be vitiated e.g. by extending the life of Parliament indefinitely or gerrymandering the electorate so that the government could never be ousted – that is to say, permanently destroying democracy. Otherwise, the Monarch, acting alone, no more has such veto power than do any of his subjects.”
Exactly what I said – a veto over “permanently destroying democracy” otherwise the Monarch has no more veto power than do any of his subjects.
Precisely!
Let me remind you what I said: “the only exception - and most authorities agree on this - is that he may veto a bill that attempts to abolish democracy. That is a vitally important power. If there had been a German King in 1933 with that power alone, he could have vetoed Hitler's seizure of power and abolition of democracy and forced him to an election. World history might then have been very different.”
Did you forget that already?
You must have a memory like a sieve if you had forgotten that I said this.
Now that is all I am prepared to say on this subject. I am not interested in debating with someone who arrogantly refuses to listen or debate properly but instead behaves like a petulant, autistic child.
So – please do not bother to respond any further. The debate is OVER.
So, the review has BEGUN - a first question - do you find Bogle unfittingly obsessed with being dismissive rather than actually arguing in detail why an analysis of mine is wrong? I think he repeated a slur about a mental diagnosis and an age group six times in total.
A second one, does he remind more than just me of The Emperor's New Clothes in H. C. Andersen? (Quibblers may say this is the first point) ...
Third, he misreads the parliament's site as saying "royal assent is a formality" while it
actually says "and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality."
Fourth, will any fourth form student in constitutional right read this?/HGL
PS, let's not forget whom we are talking about:
Legitimist, Cavalier, Jacobite, Carlist, Miguelist, Bourbonist, πρό παντός Ρωμηός... (from James Bogle's FB profile)
A Jacobite stating Royal Assent
is a formality because conventions formed by Liberals and Whigs like Erskine and Bagehot have made it so?
A Carlist forgetting who joined the Falangists in 1936?/HGL
PPS - a
Catholic forgetting what Pope approved the Falangists and Carlists and the Junta?/HGL
Illustration of previous from wiki:
The speech at Castelgandolfo, 14 September 1936
In the first bloody months of the Civil War some ecclesiastics managed to escape to Marseilles, Genoa, or Rome and these brought news reports with them, with which they sought to apply pressure to the organs of the Vatican Curia with whom they maintained regular relations. (Hilari Raguer, a Benedictine writer on religious history, points out that they necessarily delivered a biased report – bishops and aristocrats carry more weight than peasants and workers – and poor workers had no means of escape to take them from the Francoist zone to Rome). Father Ledóchowski, the superior general of the Jesuits, ordered the Jesuit press all over the world to support the rebels. It became known that Pius XI would grant an audience, at his summer residence at Castelgandolfo, to a large group of Spanish refugees and deliver an address to them. Expectation rose amongst the Spanish clergy in Rome. Though it should have fallen to Cardinal Francisco Vidal y Barraquer to lead the group of Spanish clergy, there was great animosity to him from the majority of Spanish ecclesiastics and the Pope instructed him to say he judged it wiser not to attend. Some 500 Spaniards, mostly priests and religious, as well as some secular supporters of the Uprising, did attend. The content of the speech disappointed the more fanatical among the supporters of the military rising. He read it in Italian and a Spanish translation was distributed as a leaflet. Entitled La vostra presenza (Your Presence Here), it began with lamentation for the fate of the victims and condemned communism. This part of the speech was used from this point on in Francoist propaganda. He quoted from the Book of Revelation, telling the refugees they came out of great tribulation (Rev 7:14). Yet whilst some hoped and expected that the Insurgent cause would be declared a Holy War or Crusade – it had already been so designated by various bishops and generals – Pius XI expressed horror at fratricidal war and exhorted the insurgents to love their enemies. He thanked those who had tried to alleviate the miseries of war, though their effect had been minimal. This too may have displeased the fervent supporters of Franco who were present, for the insurgents had always obstructed intervention of this kind by governments or neutral organisations such as the International Red Cross[11]
PPPS - on epikeia:
Summa Theologiae, II-II, Question 120. "Epikeia" or equity
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm
PPPPS - on Carlism and 1936:
Dos conmemoraciones de hoy son bien conocidas. Una, la del comienzo de la Cruzada de Liberación 1936-1939, a la que el Requeté y toda la Comunión Tradicionalista fueron por orden dada por el padre de S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón, el entonces Jefe de la Junta Suprema Carlista de Guerra, Don Francisco Javier de Borbón Parma, en nombre de su tío el Rey Don Alfonso Carlos. La otra, la muerte en el exilio en Varese, en 1909, de S.M.C. el Rey Don Carlos VII, hermano mayor de Don Alfonso Carlos y tío abuelo también de Don Sixto Enrique.
S.A.R. Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón
18 juillet 2014
https://www.facebook.com/sixtoenriquedeborbon/posts/10152534759941772/
(Don Sixto Enrique de Borbón is of the Carlist succession)./HGL
PPPPPS - I simply notified Bogle, see what happened:
If one is an academic with no cyber presence, one can certainly have one's presence everywhere on actual social media a purely private one.
But as James Bogle actually wants more readers than he can get on papers and internally circulated pdf's or compact discs, he actually wants people to read what he writes on for instance the referred to blog post on the Rorate Caeli blog, it stands to reason, he is apt to get responses from people less exclusively like his own circles, and to get them by way of internet. If he wants his FB left alone, it is perfectly possible to have a public email for contact on what he publishes, so that when he opens that inbox he can brace himself, and when he goes to Facebook, he needn't worry.
My own public email is hgl@dr.com - if he has a lawyer representing his interests of privacy or copyright issues, he can ask the lawyer to contact me there./HGL
