From: "John Beamish" 

I have never said that the Parliamentary system has checks and balances.

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.

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

"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