It's nice to see the new CA newspaper get off on the right foot by asking Lucretia coming out from her nom de plume to comment on Chuck Shumer's ICE- mongering. She writes well, even for an academic.
I've been studying the British system of government for a few years now. It's difficult for a foreigner to understand, as many hidden assumptions are seldom written down. I ended up purchasing a UK high school civics textbook which explains their system at length.
Simply put, the British have no concept of the separation of powers. Parliament is their legislative branch, but their executive branch, the PM and his cabinet, is merely a panel of members of Parliament. This is expressly forbidden in the US. US Constitution Art. I section 6 paragraph 2.
The British judicial branch is a panel of law lords in the House of Lords. If the US followed this example, our SCOTUS would be the members of the Senate judiciary committee. We could have had Teddy Kennedy interpreting Constitutional law for us.
The Articles of Confederation was only in force for eight years, but that amount of time was enough to show the weakness of a government with no executive branch.
Your analysis is correct historically but the Labor government did away with the "law lords" aspect of the House of Lords along with removing most of the hereditary peers years ago. [hereditary peers now vote to select a limited number of their fellows to serve in the House of Lords] It did that by establishing a Supreme Court, which although unintended, has arrogated to itself the right to invalidate Parliamentary actions if it deems them to violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is still signed on to despite BREXIT.
One British beneficiary of heredity is probably shaking in his pricey boots today. Prince Andrew was arrested. The proclamation was: No one is above the law. (With the possible exception of the Pakistani rape gangs.)
Over the centuries, 237,142,861 philosophers (rounded to the next whole number) have attempted a definition of happiness, with no clear agreement and plenty of disagreement. You make it 237,142,862 philosophers. According to the two Nordic contenders for happiest country, it is measured by degree of satisfaction with government benefits. Bentham tried to disguise the fuzziness of the concept by calling it utility. Yet any human of however limited education can promptly and easily answer the question, Are you happy? It's not something you have to think about. Thinking has nothing to do with it. For the sake of your own peace of mind I hope you never read Aristotle's definition of virtue.
Hope you will take up Secretary Rubio’s speech in Munich on the podcast. It is worth thoughtful consideration as an outline of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
Haven’t read your piece but I think I would define happiness as complete self-possession (or as close to that as possible) - so the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of that.
Well, I guess the new way forward for BSers is to hug your opponents after you have been laid low by them. That way, you will get an eternal pass, even after death.
It's nice to see the new CA newspaper get off on the right foot by asking Lucretia coming out from her nom de plume to comment on Chuck Shumer's ICE- mongering. She writes well, even for an academic.
I've been studying the British system of government for a few years now. It's difficult for a foreigner to understand, as many hidden assumptions are seldom written down. I ended up purchasing a UK high school civics textbook which explains their system at length.
Simply put, the British have no concept of the separation of powers. Parliament is their legislative branch, but their executive branch, the PM and his cabinet, is merely a panel of members of Parliament. This is expressly forbidden in the US. US Constitution Art. I section 6 paragraph 2.
The British judicial branch is a panel of law lords in the House of Lords. If the US followed this example, our SCOTUS would be the members of the Senate judiciary committee. We could have had Teddy Kennedy interpreting Constitutional law for us.
The Articles of Confederation was only in force for eight years, but that amount of time was enough to show the weakness of a government with no executive branch.
Your analysis is correct historically but the Labor government did away with the "law lords" aspect of the House of Lords along with removing most of the hereditary peers years ago. [hereditary peers now vote to select a limited number of their fellows to serve in the House of Lords] It did that by establishing a Supreme Court, which although unintended, has arrogated to itself the right to invalidate Parliamentary actions if it deems them to violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is still signed on to despite BREXIT.
One British beneficiary of heredity is probably shaking in his pricey boots today. Prince Andrew was arrested. The proclamation was: No one is above the law. (With the possible exception of the Pakistani rape gangs.)
Randy Andy is no longer a prince, but rather Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
That exception seems more factual than possible.
My civics textbook does date from some years ago. I looked it up: the UK supreme court dates from 2009.
Churchill's comment on creating peerages: it might be better to have a few disapeerages.
Viva the three Musketeers!
Over the centuries, 237,142,861 philosophers (rounded to the next whole number) have attempted a definition of happiness, with no clear agreement and plenty of disagreement. You make it 237,142,862 philosophers. According to the two Nordic contenders for happiest country, it is measured by degree of satisfaction with government benefits. Bentham tried to disguise the fuzziness of the concept by calling it utility. Yet any human of however limited education can promptly and easily answer the question, Are you happy? It's not something you have to think about. Thinking has nothing to do with it. For the sake of your own peace of mind I hope you never read Aristotle's definition of virtue.
Hope you will take up Secretary Rubio’s speech in Munich on the podcast. It is worth thoughtful consideration as an outline of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
God willing, "Scalia's unique contribution" will leave its mark on the next few months of SCOTUS opinions. Pessimistically I fear it won't.
Steve Markman's brilliance is underappreciated.
Haven’t read your piece but I think I would define happiness as complete self-possession (or as close to that as possible) - so the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of that.
Well, I guess the new way forward for BSers is to hug your opponents after you have been laid low by them. That way, you will get an eternal pass, even after death.