Posted on 07/17/2013 6:37:49 AM PDT by informavoracious
Skid marks.
Having look that quote up in the past, it was once attributed to some writings by Alexander Tytler or De Tocqueville. However, it was first quoted in 1951 by the Daily Oklahoman regarding a book that Tytler supposedly wrote, but has never been found to exist. It's a myth, but none the less true. Even Benjamin Franklin has been attribute to the saying, while he paraphrased it. The above is what historians call the "Why Democracies Fail" (WDF). The below is called the "Fatal Sequence" (FS). "Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
"Wikipedia: Its earliest confirmed use is by Henning Webb Prentis, Jr., President of the Armstrong Cork Company. It was during a speech entitled "Industrial Management in a Republic," delivered in the grand ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria at New York during the 250th meeting of the National Conference Board on March 18, 1943."
I've seen the above statement on other sites in so many words.
Prentis did not use the "fatal sequence" quotation in conjunction with the "why democracies fail" quotation. But they have later been published together and both attributed to Tytler, as in the queries column of American Notes & Queries in April 1979. Nobody can find any work by Tytler with the Fatal Sequence quotation, and it appears to be original to Prentis."
Other people that historians attributed for the Fatal Sequence are: Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), Ezra Taft Benson (1899-1994), Davis Paschall (1911-2001), Bernard Weatherill (1920-present) and Robert Muntzel (?-?).
FYI, I've researched the above quotations at many sites and they all same the same thing as above. No one is sure who said the quotes above, except for maybe the "Fatal Sequence by Prentis that most agree with, but not all. I was curious after reading that Franklin said that while cataloging quotes from our Founding Fathers.
Again, both quotes apply to political civilizations.
She is, if it's constitutional. She has reserve powers to block unconstitutional laws, but no others.
She also, expressly, took an Oath at her Coronation that cedes any power she might have to intervene on religious or moral grounds to the Bishops and Archbishops in the House of Lords.
The Queen is not a tyrant. It amazes me to see the number of American Republicans at the moment who seem to think she should try and act like one and overrule the will of the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom. Didn't your forefathers fight a war because of something like that? Isn't that why America has Republicans?
“Kind of like La Raza not supporting Zimmerman.”
Phoney baloney ethnic front groups only care about protecting leftists, not minorities who don’t toe the liberal line. See the ADL and NAACP for further details.
Not quite all - but most. And she has no power to intervene in this case.
The Monarch could refuse assent to a law only if it was unconstitutional. The last time a British Monarch did this was 1708.
George IV considered blocking a Bill in the 1820s that relaxed restrictions on Catholics in Britain, because he was concerned it violated his Oaths concerning the Supremacy of the Church of England, but it was made clear to him by his Ministers that Parliament now reserved such matters to themselves and they were not Constitutional.
The last time a Monarch even considered refusing Royal Assent was in 1914 when George V considered doing so over the Government of Ireland Bill (note - a purely Constitutional Bill, concerning, directly, the government of one of constituent nations of the United Kingdom at the time). Because this was a Bill that affected the Constitution, he could have done so. But he determined that a King should only do so if there was "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster".
The Queen does still have some real powers. Including a right to refuse Royal Assent over constitutional matters. But this is not such a case.
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?By those promises and principles contained therein, the monarch can certainly exercise discretion to withhold royal assent and there is no duty implied or openly expressed to be the Parliament’s rubber stamp, whether there or elsewhere in the coronation oath.
Queen: All this I promise to do. …
To quote Archie Bunker: England is a fag country. The whole country is based on a kind of fagdom. Unfortunately since the days of All in the Family America has become a fagdom as well. Who woulda thunk it. Archie must be rolling in his grave.
Yes, but constitutionally, she can only exercise influence over her Prime Minister and her government in private. She cannot do so in public.
The formula used to describe the situation is that the Queen has the right to be informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn the Prime Minister in private on all laws. They have a weekly meeting expressly for this purpose which is completely private. During that meeting she is allowed to - in fact is supposed to - counsel the Prime Minister and tell him if she believes a law is a bad idea, and he or she is required to listen to her and consider what she has said. But the Prime Minister makes the decisions.
Prime Ministers have modified their policies in the past, apparently based on such meetings. But if they choose not to, that is their right. And the Queen cannot gainsay them in public. They are Her Majesty's Government - constitutionally a situation would be intolerable if the Queen campaigned against government policy. And constitutionally, ultimate power over legislation rests with Parliament not the Queen. Except on a very small number of constitutional matters. The Queen does have real power - but only in cases where Parliament can't do something (for example, if Parliament can't clearly choose a Prime Minister, the Queen would do so - and has used this power, twice).
Yes, it does. It's not in one neat document like the US Constitution, but the UK does have a constitution and is a constitutional Monarchy.
The Oath of Coronation says nothing about ceding powers to intervene on moral or religious grounds either.
Yes, it does, and you've actually quoted it. You've focused on the first part of that section of the Oath - read the last part. I've put it in bold:
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
One of the rights and privileges of the Bishops referred to in the Oath is to sit in the House of Lords as the Lords Spiritual, and to vote in the House of Lords on matters of law.
The Queen has sworn to preserve that right. On that basis, she can't overrule a law that passed through Parliament, because the Lords Spiritual have already exercised any power the Church of England has to prevent a law being passed.
I spent much of my adult life in uniform serving Queen and country and am well versed in precisely how the constitutional monarch works in both the United Kingdom and Australia. I also used to hold a position of some authority (though not Holy Orders) in the Church of England, before deciding that Church had become too liberal for me - unlike the Queen, I have every right to leave that Church and go elsewhere. I actually do know what I am talking about when I talk about the Oaths, and how things work.
You are not saying that said rights preserved to the C of E’s bishops and clergy (nor is the oath) are ceded in perpetuity by the monarch. Nor is there an implication thereof. Royal prerogative still exists; only in the case of abolition of same would the monarch be duty-bound to rubber stamp laws that lead to the detriment of the kingdom.
And AFAICS, the Queen failed in the preservation of the first part of the oath I quoted.
Surely, as Defender of the Faith, she should have fought this vigorously; unless she truly does believe the State is, and should remain more influential in the lives of the nation than the natural law of the Supreme Being. It is one thing for America to grapple with the church/state question; it is another for a nation with an established Christian church to throw it all in the Thames.
To all those la-di-dah dismissers of the negative consequences of this decision, note that it has taken 500 years since the English church was formed to suit a lecherous King Henry XIII until this decision, which puts not only the final nail into freedom in Christ; it also drives a stake through the heart of the corpse. In this "brave" new future, children will be nothing more than prey; and women will return even farther into chattel status than they were before they started pressing for "liberation" from their traditional roles. The only difference being that before, they were chattel who were responsible for modesty and chastity. Now, they will be chattel who are expected to dress and act like whores and stand aside without protest the minute their baby daddy wants a different concubine or a boyfriend. Sad, sad day for the ghosts of Western Civ.
Under the terms of the Oath, yes. She swore to preserve their rights and privileges. That is one of their rights and privileges. It's not implied, it's explicit.
Royal prerogative still exists; only in the case of abolition of same would the monarch be duty-bound to rubber stamp laws that lead to the detriment of the kingdom.
Sorry, but you clearly don't know as much about this as you think you do. The Monarch has the power to refuse Royal Assent only on constitutional issues. They do not have that power on religious issues - in the 1820s (I don't know the exact year off the top of my head) George IV wanted to withhold Royal Assent from a Catholic Emancipation Bill precisely because he believed it violated his Coronation Oath to uphold the Supremacy of the Church of England. It was made clear that he could not do so - that once the law had passed Parliament, he had to act solely on the advice of his Ministers.
The last time a King even considered withholding Royal Assent was nearly a century ago - and that was over a purely constitutional matter (the Government of Ireland Bill of 1914) - and he determined that even on constitutional matters, where the power does still exist, the only situation it would be justified to withhold Royal Assent is to prevent a national disaster.
As I said in a previous post, it's amazing me the number of American Republicans (and I don't know if you are one or not, but it is certainly a large part of the American conservative grouping) seem to think the British Monarch should act as a tyrant and overrule the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom at the moment.
It’s sad of course but again the scripture says nothing about a special power of kings and queens of England. It’s a textbook example of what not to do in Christendom.
I don't presume to tell my Queen what she should and should not do, but if she did feel that way, she should - and would have - done so according to the principle of British Constitutional Monarchy. Which is that - in private - she has the right to warn the Prime Minister that she believes this is wrong.
She does not and can not speak out against Her Majesty's Government in public. She can and does do so in private. And because it's in private, unless she or the Prime Minister leaks it - and the Queen never has, and Prime Ministers virtually never have - nobody would know.
She has the right to be informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn - in private. That is the way it works.
All in the Family itself being the American version of a sitcom from said fag country.
The way I read it, the rights and privileges remain intact only as far as it allows the monarch to conduct the duties of “maintain(ing) the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel” et cetera; and this absolutely gives the monarch the right to exercise prerogative and reserve power on religious issues. Implying that the clergy or the parliament holds its powers in perpetuity, with absolute right of abusing them (implying a totalitarian bent on their part), is implying an abolition of prerogative where none exists.
Remember, this oath is sworn to God.
AITF did have nine seasons versus Till Death Do Us Part’s seven.
And which has more force of insult, “randy Scouse git” or “meathead”?
Fawlty Towers had just 2 series, whats your point.
And Norman Lear (and anyone who has seen both knows) openly admitted that he had to TONE DOWN the British original. Ironic, given how ‘shocking’ AITF was to US audiences.
Well, you can read it that way if you wish, but George IV tried basically the same argument nearly 200 years ago, and it was not accepted then, and it's not accepted in British constitutional law now. Bear in mind that the 1820s were the great period of reform of the British constitution, ending in the Great Reform Act of 1832. This is the time that British government took on the form, more or less, that is recognised today.
Implying that the clergy or the parliament holds its powers in perpetuity, with absolute right of abusing them (implying a totalitarian bent on their part), is implying an abolition of prerogative where none exists.
Avoiding a totalitarian government on the part of Parliament is the reason why the Monarch does retain power to intervene on constitutional issues, but avoiding a totalitarian government on the part of the Monarch is why they only have that power on certain defined issues.
Remember, this oath is sworn to God.
Yes, it is - but it also says what it says. That last sentence is part of the Oath, and has to be followed like any other part.
Equally amazing is the number, in this and the other current threads on this subject, who are apparently ignorant of the distinction between assent and approval: and that the one does not imply the other - in this or indeed any other context. The sloppy journalism of the various press articles quoted, which have assumed 'approval' where none exists, does nothing to remedy that ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.