one of the few sides not cheating in the Age Eligibility Department.
How can they cheat? I'd imagine FIFA want to see birth certificates when they register players.
Or do you just mean the German girls look old? That's a bit ungentlemanly?
Maybe APN will go bust and Auckland will be the first city without a newspaper. Personally, given we have the Internet for news, that'd be no bad thing.
an amendment would 'only' need a 2/3 majority in both houses.
Plus approval by 3/4 of the states, which is why the 27th Amendment took 200 years to ratify.
[the bible was] made over centuries
I have a theory it was hacked together in a few years by scribes working for the Emperor Constantine who wished, in an attempt to bring the declining Roman Empire under control, to replace pantheism with a rigorous and prescriptive state religion based loosely on Judaism.
But with bacon sarnies allowed.
There are two things a government could do to thwart a G-G refusing assent. They could simply replace the G-G, or they could add a clause to their bill stating that it becomes law on Third Reading.
If the G-G were to attempt to take over the chain of command, again they could simply be sacked. If a soldier were to regard themselves as not subject to the chain of command, they could be tried for refusing a lawful order.
This is not entirely academic. In 1913, the British Army bucked at being ordered to coerce Ulster into an independent Ireland (which had the support of the Asquith government and a majority in the UK and the island of Ireland). The situation became moot as a result of subsequent events in mainland Europe. Had it not, there might have been conflict between loyalist and rebel soldiers. The events of 1913 (there's a whole lot more to it) are one of the failure instances in Westminster style constitutions.
Yes, like Idiot says, where the Governor General is mentioned in legislation, they act on advice. Also, the important bit of the Defence Act setting out the chain of command is s7, which says the Minister [of defence] shall have the power of control of the .. Defence Force, which shall be exercised through the Chief of Defence Force.
Interestingly, I had a look for the times *before* the Queen Anne case when a monarch tried to veto legislation. It was quite hard to research without doing real work involving libraries and books, but: William IV refused assent to a Triennial Act, but was later persuaded out of it. Before that you go back into times involving Charles I, claimed divine right, the battle of Naseby, and the beheading of said monarch.
some coded reference to Sham 69
North Shore Boys, North Shore Boys, thousand dollar suits and million dollar toys!
It may be generally symbolic, but the GG's power to refuse assent is a final check on potential outrages by the Legislature.
Don't forget that the armed forces and the police ultimately work for the GG, not the PM.
Wrong & wrong. (and exactly the reason we need a written constitution)
The GG does *not* have the power to refuse assent. G-G's act as UK monarchs, and the last UK monarch to refuse assent was Queen Anne in 1708. The armed forces and police are required to act within the law and take direction from the elected government.
The PM in any case hires and fires the G-G and I assume any government wishing to usurp power would take the precaution of ensuring their placeman was in first. The PM can even appoint themselves as G-G if they so wish.
It's much more likely that a rogue G-G like Kerr would use the reserve power they do have (to dissolve parliament) in a partisan fashion than a G-G would act to control a rogue government.
Why? What problems would be solved by a unified documentation of our constitution to replace our mishmash of conventions, case law, and statutory instruments?
A well-drafted constitution would:
- Remove the potential for a constitutional crisis (such as the Whitlam dismissal)
- Entrench the BORA in a way that could not be changed by a disentrenching vote
- Establish the Treaty as our founding document.
- Prevent idiots from claiming that our unwritten constitution sanctions their particular idiocy, like demanding that the G-G not sign anti-child abuse legislation, or believing that being Tuhoe means they don't need to pay income tax. (Well it wouldn't, but it would limit the credence they could expect).
The grass roots will say "go with Labour", Turia will stand up and say "this is why we are going with National", and that's what will happen.
So the Maori Party is really just another personality-based breakaway? They don't want to go with Labour because Helen dissed them over the Foreshore & Seabed.
They'll join a National government, be linked with that governments abuse of Maori and others, and lose much of their support. In two or three parliaments, they'll have gone the way of Mauri Pacific, NZ First, United Future, the Jim Anderton Party and all the other vehicles-for-personal-pique that have briefly sullied NZ politics.
They did have the option to become a real party like the Greens. They probably even have the option to lose the F&S act as part of a deal with Labour. But it's not about policies, it's about people. Two or three people.