From: Gene McAloon 

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:46:33 -0400, "John Beamish"  wrote:

>I have never said that the Parliamentary system has checks and balances.
>
I didn't say you did. Someone else made that statement and I questioned it
and you then questioned what I said.

>As for choosing our judges, find someone on the Canadian Supreme Court who
>is as much of an embarassment as Clarence "Oh, no, not me, I've never
>formulated an opinion on Roe vs. Wade" Thomas.

Nice attempt at avoiding the issue. What is involved here is the democratic
nature of appointing judges using a system of checks and balances. You
don't have that in Canada eve in choosing judges.

>
>(To you, I'm a conservative; to Gary, I'm a socialist.  Must mean I'm a
>Canadian.)

Indeed you are a conservative, both in my judgement and within the Canadian
context. What Gary B. thinks would matter only if there were some evidence
that he does. I know of none.


>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
>news:lp3jh09o72v73c7e6unggdcaef19p6ag9s{at}4ax.com...
>> I don't make arguments about the obvious inadequacies of the
>> parliamentary system except when utterly foolish statements are made
>> about its alleged nature.
>>
>> To claim that the parliamentary structure has a built-in system of
>> checks and balances is complete nonsense, nonsense well known to both
>> Brits and Canadians of a political persuasion different from yours. The
>> inadequacies of the parliamentary system are precisely the reason for
>> the ever increasing movement towards junking it and adopting a
>> republican form of government more or less on the US model.
>>
>> Naturally enough, as a conservative you oppose any such movement and no
>> doubt will be defending your archaic system even as it fades from the
>> scene. The most immediate issue in your country along these lines
>> involves your courts and how your top judges are chosen.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:33:58 -0400, "John Beamish"
> DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> >Don't you think you've gone on long enough about the (in your
>perspective)
>> >merits of the US Constitutional system?  If you had new arguments, I
>could
>> >understand.
>> >
>> >You've got a system of checks and balances that works for you and gives
>you
>> >Bush 2, Patriot I, Homeland Security and the Supreme Court deciding that
>you
>> >have to identify yourself when stopped and questioned by the police.
>> >
>> >We've got a system of parliamentary democracy that works for
us and gives
>us
>> >John Turner, Kim Campbell and a Supreme Court deciding that the contents
>of
>> >your pockets cannot be searched unless you have actually been
arrested by
>> >the police.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Gene McAloon"  wrote
in message
>> >news:unshh09uclg86k0b7vnf5jaecgpnkaup1d{at}4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> As I say, there are no checks and balances in the Brit
parliamentary
>> >> system. The experience of Thatcher doesn't in any way suggest
>otherwise.
>> >> She was thrown out of her leadership position by her own
party and for
>> >> no other reason than that the majority of the party members at the
>party
>> >> conference thought she couldn't win another general election.
>> >>
>> >> How can there be a system of checks and balances when everything,
>> >> legislative, executive and judicial functions, are all exercised by
>> >> parliament? Without separate branches, there can be no checks and
>> >> balances and the Brit parliamentary system has none.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5