RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference?

RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/10/2013 4:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Citizens are subject to the law. Its tomato tomato. I knew someone would understand. [;)]

thompsonx -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/10/2013 4:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What do you see as the difference between a subject and a citizen? The Divine Right of Kings. How many of them are left?

eulero83 -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/10/2013 4:57:48 PM)
Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Vatican City, each of the United Arab Emirates.

thompsonx -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/10/2013 6:05:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Vatican City, each of the United Arab Emirates. So about a dozen countries in the world are rueled by someone that has an imaginary friend who said he got to be in charge. Wonder how long till that shit dies out completely?

eulero83 -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/11/2013 12:59:33 AM)
By the way also the Republic of San Marino's citizens are such because around 300 AD their imaginary friend said they had to form a parlament. Vatican city will go on for long time because: one Italy can't declare war first after WWII so we can't finish the job, two all the subjects willingly submit and they go around talking about their imaginary friend at any given time.

PeonForHer -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/11/2013 7:57:22 AM)
I think the King of Tonga still has absolute rule. But I haven't bothered to look it up, nor indeed whether Tonga is still called that. ETA: I tell a lie. From Wikipedia - In 2010 Tonga took a decisive step towards becoming a fully functioning constitutional monarchy, after legislative reforms paved the way for its first partial representative elections. So there we are.

Apocalypso -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/12/2013 3:39:09 PM)
I'd disagree with my fellow Brits and say it's only mostly ceremonial. The Monarch does have certain powers though they're only likely to be used in exceptional circumstances. Like in Australia, in 1975. The removal of the elected Prime Minister by the Governor-General was only constitutionally possible because he is the representative of the Crown. Another interesting anomaly is that the Armed Forces swear their loyalty to the Crown, not the people. That means that technically you could have a constitutionally legal military coup in the UK. That's entirely theoretical though. It's never even been near happening. Some of the loonier plots against Harold Wilson had it as a major component though. The most significant effect it has though (and this is why I'm a republican) is that it has a big effect on how government works. If the executive uses their prerogative powers (which are inherited directly from the Crown), it's near impossible to hold them to account. It's how Tony Blair bypassed parliament to go to war with Iraq. The monarchy is our government. Without getting rid of it, you can't overhaul the (unwritten) constitution.

crazyml -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/12/2013 4:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Vatican City, each of the United Arab Emirates. So about a dozen countries in the world are rueled by someone that has an imaginary friend who said he got to be in charge. Wonder how long till that shit dies out completely? 50 years for 6 of the 7 I'd say. The exception will likely be around in 1000 years.

eulero83 -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/12/2013 4:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso I'd disagree with my fellow Brits and say it's only mostly ceremonial. The Monarch does have certain powers though they're only likely to be used in exceptional circumstances. Like in Australia, in 1975. The removal of the elected Prime Minister by the Governor-General was only constitutionally possible because he is the representative of the Crown. Another interesting anomaly is that the Armed Forces swear their loyalty to the Crown, not the people. That means that technically you could have a constitutionally legal military coup in the UK. That's entirely theoretical though. It's never even been near happening. Some of the loonier plots against Harold Wilson had it as a major component though. The most significant effect it has though (and this is why I'm a republican) is that it has a big effect on how government works. If the executive uses their prerogative powers (which are inherited directly from the Crown), it's near impossible to hold them to account. It's how Tony Blair bypassed parliament to go to war with Iraq. The monarchy is our government. Without getting rid of it, you can't overhaul the (unwritten) constitution. I make you some question to understand better: Is there a costitutional duty for the crown to use this powers in the best interest of the people? Can the governament be removed by the parlament with a vote of distrust? then about a costitutional military coup it's possible in every republic as the president is usually the chief of the army, than some costitutions need a more unlikely situation than others but the state of emergency is always a possibility.

Apocalypso -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/12/2013 4:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Is there a costitutional duty for the crown to use this powers in the best interest of the people? I don't believe so. Our at least I'm not aware of any precedents. Because our constitution is uncodifed it's harder then you might think to answer that off the top of my head. quote: Can the governament be removed by the parlament with a vote of distrust? Yes, the last successful vote of no confidence was in 1979.

BamaD -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/12/2013 6:26:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Is there a costitutional duty for the crown to use this powers in the best interest of the people? I don't believe so. Our at least I'm not aware of any precedents. Because our constitution is uncodifed it's harder then you might think to answer that off the top of my head. quote: Can the governament be removed by the parlament with a vote of distrust? Yes, the last successful vote of no confidence was in 1979. What's good for the crown is good for the people, don't you know that.

eulero83 -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/13/2013 2:42:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Is there a costitutional duty for the crown to use this powers in the best interest of the people? I don't believe so. Our at least I'm not aware of any precedents. Because our constitution is uncodifed it's harder then you might think to answer that off the top of my head. quote: Can the governament be removed by the parlament with a vote of distrust? Yes, the last successful vote of no confidence was in 1979. The vote of no confidence is what subject the executive power ot the parlament and not to the crown, this makes the power of nominating a prime minister a duty to guarantee political stability instead of an arbitrary power. In italy we have the same system with the president of the republic that's not prime minister like in the usa, he's elected by the parlament every 7 years (the parlament should be in charge 5 years so he's no more connected to the parlament once elected) he has the duty of nominate a prime minister that can be accepted by the parlament and win a vote of trust, he has the power to dismiss the parlament and have new election if it's impossible to find a clear majority, and with other powers the army swear to the president, so he's like an elected king but he has a legal duty to use those powers to protect the costitution.

thompsonx -> RE: Citizen vs Subject, what is the difference? (10/13/2013 10:43:51 AM)
What's good for the crown is good for the people, don't you know that. Isn't that a lot like "what is good for business is good for america"?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875