From: "Gary Britt" 

No it means that both you and Gene are wrong!!!! 

Gary

"John Beamish"  wrote in
message news:411a2f83{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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