GSM Encryption
in [Cryptography]
|
From: unruh on 3 Jan 2010 16:30 On 2010-01-03, Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam(a)arcor.de> wrote: > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get >>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and >>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses. >> >> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political >> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. > > Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special > powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-) She has no legislative powers (Ie, powers to make laws). Is a constitution an insurmountable barrier to dictatorship? No. But the British constition has been amazingly resiliant at resisting such. The last time the UK had a dictator was under Cromwell, who killed the king. (Mind you Charles I was killed because he tried to take on the former dictatorial powers of the king to himself, and failed) Two dictatorships in a row caused the UK to assume the current state, in which there was a strict division of powers-- the king/queen was there solely to come to the aid of the body politic only in times of extreme emergency and then only with very limited powers. But in name the king/queen was the source of power, so that the elected representatives did not take it in mind to abrogate those powers to themselves. Names are important. > >>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament >>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. >> >> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The >> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her >> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the >> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as >> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god. > > But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the > Governor say no? What power? She can, if there is no leader in parialment, ask someone to lead it. That only applies if there is no leader ( and was applied by the GG in Australia, where one prime minister resigned, and the GG appointed another one, rather than call an election). If there is a leader in parliament, she, or the GG does not have the power to fire them. She has the power to refuse to ratify laws that are passed. She has no power to make any laws. And the GG (Governor General) could refuse, and one would have a constitutional crisis which would be resolved by abolishing the Queen as head of state (there is a constant republican push for that anyway, and her actions would probably tip the balance, unless the law really were so abhorent, that most people would support her action). > >>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... >> >> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie >> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly >> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but >> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial >> powers. > > But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until > they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved. > > BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held > prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted? The queen is the fount of all power in the UK. But by the constitutional convention, she acts on the advice of her ministers. Thus any such law means that the prisoner is in jail for as long as the gov't wants. Note that in the US, the president can pardon someone on a whim. See G Ford with respect to Nixon. > > Juergen Nieveler
From: unruh on 3 Jan 2010 16:31 On 2010-01-03, Thomas Pornin <pornin(a)bolet.org> wrote: > According to Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam(a)arcor.de>: >> BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held >> prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted? > > Actually, the barons forced unto the King John on June 1216 the > "Magna Carta", a bounding law which specifically prohibits the > King from ordering such arbitrary detention. So it really is the > other way round. Note that I believe in the US, contempt of court laws allow for the arbitrary detention of people for an arbitrary length of time. > > > --Thomas Pornin
From: Bernd Felsche on 3 Jan 2010 17:39 Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam(a)arcor.de> wrote: >unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get >>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and >>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses. >> >> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political >> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. >Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special >powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-) The "emergency" is when parliaments become unworkable due to political conflict. >>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament >>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. >> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The >> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her >> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the >> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as >> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god. >But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the >Governor say no? Powers are limited by the Constitution. HM may not e.g. make laws. >>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... >> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie >> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly >> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but >> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial >> powers. >But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until >they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved. >BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held >prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted? There are "special laws" like that in every country. The judiciary acts in the name of the crown, but that doesn't mean that the monarch can simply require that a particular person be locked up. There is a rule of law. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The most dangerous ignorance is the X against HTML mail | ignorance of the educated class. / \ and postings | -- Thomas Sowell
From: Richard Outerbridge on 3 Jan 2010 21:26 In article <slrnhk2334.l2.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get > >>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and > >>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses. > >> > >> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political > >> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. > > > > Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special > > powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-) > > She has no legislative powers (Ie, powers to make laws). > > Is a constitution an insurmountable barrier to dictatorship? No. But the > British constition has been amazingly resiliant at resisting such. The > last time the UK had a dictator was under Cromwell, who killed the king. > (Mind you Charles I was killed because he tried to take on the former > dictatorial powers of the king to himself, and failed) Two dictatorships > in a row caused the UK to assume the current state, in which there was a > strict division of powers-- the king/queen was there solely to come to > the aid of the body politic only in times of extreme emergency and then > only with very limited powers. But in name the king/queen was the source > of power, so that the elected representatives did not take it in mind to > abrogate those powers to themselves. Names are important. > > > > > >>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament > >>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. > >> > >> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The > >> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her > >> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the > >> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as > >> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god. > > > > But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the > > Governor say no? > > What power? She can, if there is no leader in parialment, ask someone to > lead it. That only applies if there is no leader ( and was applied by > the GG in Australia, where one prime minister resigned, and the GG > appointed another one, rather than call an election). If there is a > leader in parliament, she, or the GG does not have the power to fire > them. She has the power to refuse to ratify laws that are passed. > She has no power to make any laws. > And the GG (Governor General) could refuse, and one would have a > constitutional crisis which would be resolved by abolishing the Queen as > head of state (there is a constant republican push for that anyway, and > her actions would probably tip the balance, unless the law really were > so abhorent, that most people would support her action). > > > > > > >>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... > >> > >> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie > >> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly > >> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but > >> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial > >> powers. > > > > But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until > > they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved. > > > > BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held > > prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted? > > The queen is the fount of all power in the UK. But by the constitutional > convention, she acts on the advice of her ministers. Thus any such law > means that the prisoner is in jail for as long as the gov't wants. > Note that in the US, the president can pardon someone on a whim. See G > Ford with respect to Nixon. Actually, this is strangely topical. For the 2nd year in a row the Canadian Prime Minister, one Mr. Stephen Harper, the one with the Karma Holmoka blue eyes, has asked our current Governor General to Prorogue the Canadian Parliament. Apparently she had no choice but to accede to his request. This is sort of like Obama telling the House to adjourn until further notice. outer
From: Andrew Swallow on 4 Jan 2010 09:02
Juergen Nieveler wrote: > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >>> She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get >>> here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and >>> call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses. >> Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political >> emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. > > Speaking as a german, I'm more than a bit sceptical about special > powers for "emergency use" being non-dictatorial ;-) > That is why Anglo-Saxons keep on about the separation of powers. >>> As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament >>> there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. >> In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The >> Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her >> permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the >> "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as >> it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god. > > But if she DOES decide to use her power, could she do it? Or could the > Governor say no? > >>> So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... >> In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie >> breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly >> say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but >> they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial >> powers. > > But she can make life so difficult that people can't do anything until > they do what she wants them to do. Goal achieved. > > BTW, wasn't there a law in the UK that some people could be held > prisoner for as long as the Queen wanted? > > Juergen Nieveler You are thinking of the sentence given for murders - detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. The person has to be convicted by a jury first and sentenced by a judge. Lots of separation of power there. Andrew Swallow |