Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!enother.net!enother.net!news.mixmin.net!news.unit0.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Alex W." Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:38:37 +1000 Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net AYQdnX+k+xHpdB5NgS7kcw71BPhs5Nh17aD7/zn5U41Clpq287 Cancel-Lock: sha1:yKwtsC+jDWhLc2xEmeqFG/ZTewg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com alt.atheism:2172271 sci.physics.relativity:393439 On 23/09/2016 06:23, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.09.2016 09:37, schrieb Alex W.: >> On 22/09/2016 16:34, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.: >>> >>>>>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not >>>>>>> deputies >>>>>>> >in a parliament. >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of >>>>>> the government. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. >>>>> >>>>> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three >>>>> branches: >>>>> - legislation >>>>> - jurisdiction >>>>> - executive branch >>>>> >>>>> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually >>>>> called Prime minister and ministers. >>>> >>>> That would be a parliamentary democracy. >>>> >>>> The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a >>>> type >>>> known as presidential democracy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law >>>>> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their >>>>> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. >>>>> >>>>> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not >>>>> make laws, because they are not elected. >>>>> >>>>> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. >>>> >>>> Not quite. >>>> All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the >>>> extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of >>>> the law can and does differ. >>>> >>>> For that matter, the German constitutional court >>>> (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative >>>> force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. >>> >>> Yes, that's true. >>> >>> But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the >>> protection of the constitution. >>> >>> In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would >>> violate the constitution. >>> >>> So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which >>> the constitution does not allow. >> >> Theoretically. >> In practice, the court chooses which cases to hear and which issues to >> deal with. So if the court, for whatever reason, decides not to take on >> a specific case, then the government is free to do whatever they want in >> this matter, whether it is constitutional or not. >> >> >>> >>>>> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any >>>>> known category. >>>> >>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>> >>> >>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have >>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. >>> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. >> >> Have you watched too much costume drama? > > Actually I have participated too long in the UseNet group 'alt.conspiracy'. > > So I always try to figure out, who are the 'bad guys'. > > My latest hypothesis: the 'Livery Companies' of the City of London (aka > 'guilds'). > >> What century do you live in? > > Depends on how you count. >> >> We do have a queen. Her formal role is even more restricted than that of >> the German president (although, due to her very long tenure, she has >> rather more private influence than Gauck). > > > Lets compare: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_precedence > > "The German order of precedence is a symbolic hierarchy of officials in > the Government of Germany used to direct protocol. It has no official > status, but has been established in practical use.[1] > > The Federal President (Bundespräsident) > The President of the Bundestag (Bundestagspräsident) > The Chancellor (Bundeskanzler) > The President of the Federal Council (Bundesratspräsident), also > acting as deputy to the President > The President of the Federal Constitutional Court (Präsident des > Bundesverfassungsgerichts) Note the word "symbolic". What you listed and what I snipped is *symbolic*. It's a social guide to who gets to sit where at state banquets. If you happen to be a wedding organiser specialising in the high society, you will need this. Otherwise, it is quite meaningless in all the ways that matter.