An Order in Council is a piece of legislation by decree, in theory proclaimed by the Queen, but in practice issued by the government of the day without all the fuss and bother involved in passing an Act of Parliament: Queen shows up at a Privy Council meeting (quorum of four, IIRC), a minister reads out a bunch of orders, Queen says “approved”, job done.
Jack Straw used an Order in Council to prevent the people of the Chagos Islands returning home, in response to a High Court ruling that they were entitled to do so.
ETA: point being, a ceremonial head of state isn’t necessarily better/safer than an executive head of state if they have “theoretical” powers that the actual government can wield in their name.
Following the recent decision of the Supreme Court (8-3), it is now not so clear that could happen again without the approval of Parliament. (Mind you, Jack Straw was also one of our most contemptible politicians.)
Not that I’ve ever tried to conceal it.
Agreed, but I’ll take homeopathy as an eccentricity along with the rest of it. I blame his mother, who was dead keen on it.
Maybe. As I understand it, the Supremes’ ruling was based on two established principles: first, that the royal prerogative cannot be used to overturn a statute (in this case the European Communities Act); second, that it cannot be used to deprive citizens of existing rights (e.g. to vote or stand in European elections). I don’t think the first applies in the case of the Chagos islanders, and I’m not sure about the second, given the islands’ status as a British territory rather than part of the UK. At the time, the Law Lords held that Straw’s action was lawful: perhaps the current set of Supremes would disagree.
In any event, not all orders in council take their power from the royal prerogative: some are rooted in statute. Hence horrors like the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, which gives ministers the powers to repeal or amend any legislation by order. There are some restrictions (no new taxes, no new crimes punishable by more than two years in prison) and safeguards (the requirement for cursory Parliamentary approval): but as the Act can be used to amend itself, these are small comfort.
It is an attempt to show the world that he isn’t impotent. It’s his greatest obsession, even greater than his obsession with getting back at everyone who ever slighted him.
Without sarcasm, without hyperbole, I’ve pretty much assumed there will not be an office of president once Trump is done with it. This will either be because we will have effectively fended off this fascist putsch and have reinvented the government to make it more resistant to such outrage, or it will be because the Angry Pumpkin in chief no longer thinks such trivial titles matter any more.
First of all “the election” was not hacked. The hacking was against the DNC emails, John Podesta emails and, as the FBI has revealed, Hillary Clinton’s non-secure email server. The public has not seen evidence that it was done by Russia but even if it were, this is NORMAL hacking. And I hate to have to say this:
THAT IS NOT HACKING THE ELECTION.
What’s more it merely exposes more truth about the horrible candidate and her supporters. So I’m curious – does anyone think less of Clinton after learning the truth? I don’t… I couldn’t think less of her and none of it surprised me. And NO ONE has denied any of the truths revealed in those emails.
And leaking emails is NOT “hacking the election.” Hacking the election would be rigging the election by doing things like manipulating voting machines which is a charge not being made. Hacking the election would be rigging the election by pardoning thousands of felons which was done in the state of Virginia. Hacking the election would be rigging the election by keeping the polls open well after the federal time limits to give time for people to cross states borders as they did in Nevada.
The election was hacked. It failed to prevent Trump from being elected.
And this “trash executive order”? Are you kidding? All it did was act on Obama’s list of countries. Want to place blame? Blame Obama.
That is moronic. Trump is, so far, acting within the law. The hyperbole about his action being unconstitutional is just that. The constitution is clear on the powers of the executive and he CAN, in fact, restrict any people from entering this country. It’s right there in black and white. No amendment addresses the rights to enter this country. Some claim “first amendment” but that only matters to people already within this country legally.
Obama, on the other hand, has broken numerous laws including the use of the IRS to attack people, the Fast and Furious gun running and a lot more.
Get back to us when Trump does anything which is not allowed by law.
