- Banned
- #101
Who said anything about an American model?
There are examples of directly-elected Presidents in parliamentary systems, Ireland for instance.
That's not a very good example.
Irleand's up the shitter.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who said anything about an American model?
There are examples of directly-elected Presidents in parliamentary systems, Ireland for instance.
You call the entire history of democracy 'very little'? Name me one single long-standing democratic state - existing or defunct - where the head of state is chosen (rather than hereditary), but does not receive a mandate from the people to fulfil that role.
That's not a very good example.
Irleand's up the shitter.
In fairness, that has nothing to do with their constitution.
San Marino is one such example. Oldest republic in the world, Democracy since the 1600's and Head(s) of State selected by the Parliament since the 13th Century.
That's a good point, I'd completely forgotten about them. But to be fair, a country that is significantly smaller and less populous than most Australian local government areas is probably not a great model.San Marino is one such example. Oldest republic in the world, Democracy since the 1600's and Head(s) of State selected by the Parliament since the 13th Century.
....
Saying "hey, Ireland goes alright, that's proof enough" when they've only been a republic for 60 years is an incredibly dangerous way to think. A constitution designed to stand for centuries needs more a circumspect approach.
So what's a fair sample period in your opinion?
Obviously the 60-odd years where the Irish President's power hasn't moved an iota isn't enough.
As many of us have stated, the US repbulican system has changed quite dramatically. Hit up wikipedia. It's a very real suggestion that what we put in a constitution now would not lead to a society we really wanted.
The legal and societal hurdle of an Australian republic is much more than symbolic.
Its also not the system proposed for Australia.
Actually, I think Australia is extremely conservative in relation to altering it's constitution. Only 8 have gotten up and proposals that you would think would be a home run have not succeeded.
Actually, I think Australia is extremely conservative in relation to altering it's constitution. Only 8 have gotten up and proposals that you would think would be a home run have not succeeded.
Any democratic system that's been in existence longer than living memory?So what's a fair sample period in your opinion?
Obviously the 60-odd years where the Irish President's power hasn't moved an iota isn't enough.
Referenda aren't the only way to change the framework. The most significant changes to the Constitutional landscape were made my HCA judges, not the Australian people.
It's the interpretation and malleability of the instrument as a whole which is the most important thing. Even "air-tight" wording can be prone to changes in meaning, much like any other phrase in the English language. That can be seen as a positive or negative, it's all in the eye of beholder.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Well, that's right! Unfortunately on this specific item - and there's 22 separate items in this reform agreement - on this specific item it doesn't look like due diligence was done by other parties. I am confident from my advice that it stacks up in regards to Section 40, so long as - and this is the critical factor - so long as there is goodwill and agreement from all members. And from the meeting today there is obvious tension still alive. And therefore from my position, in light of that, you know, it's a step too far for this independent to go for that Speaker's spot.
That is true, of course.
I've always felt that the High Court has an important role in interpreting Constitutional issues, but should stay well clear of taking on a reformist agenda.
True constitutional reform is a matter for the voting public.
It isn't for the High Court to undertake constitutional reform, and it certainty isn't the role for parliamentary members either.
i.e, It would not be against the constitution, as long as we make sure that nobody challenges it.
We should be running away from that sort of stuff at a million miles an hour.
You call the entire history of democracy 'very little'? Name me one single long-standing democratic state - existing or defunct - where the head of state is chosen (rather than hereditary), but does not receive a mandate from the people to fulfil that role.
The idea that a republic founded on popular sovereignty would not have a HOS selected by the people is an anathema. It's why they don't exist - or if they do exist, they tend to be very shortlived.
The shortsightedness of so many people on this topic is frightening. If you're setting up a constitution, two things are fatal - not taking heed of history, and assuming everyone will approach things with the same frame of reference you do.
Saying "hey, Ireland goes alright, that's proof enough" when they've only been a republic for 60 years is an incredibly dangerous way to think. A constitution designed to stand for centuries needs more a circumspect approach.
Germany and IsrealName me one single long-standing democratic state - existing or defunct - where the head of state is chosen (rather than hereditary), but does not receive a mandate from the people to fulfil that role.
Germany and Isreal
Exactly. Thats why we stay as we are and call it what you like. When we start fighting over who runs the place then we are in the poo.A Head of State and a Vice-Regal Representative are two very different things. It is accepted that we don't get a big say in the GG primarily because the GG is first and foremost the representative of the Queen, not us.
Call him what you want, I doubt people would be willing to accept a Head of State appointed under the current arrangements for the GG. If you were lucky you might get it past the initial referendum, but sooner or later there would be a demand for them to be appointed by mandate.
Once the HOS receives a mandate from the people, then you start to have problems. There is little conflict between the Crown and the PM precisely because only one of them can legitimately claim the backing of popular sovereignty.