From: "John Beamish" 

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