Posted on 09/07/2015 7:00:29 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Since when does Parliament have constitutional power to wage war on the family? and by extension freedom of religion? Are you claiming that the Parliament has power of tyranny?
The British have been citizens since 1st January 1949.
Nationality Act of 1948.
Just a sidenote:
I have a constitutionally protected right to vote.
You don’t.
You see, nothing is perfect.
“The British have been citizens since 1st January 1949.
Nationality Act of 1948.”
A distinction without a difference.
You also don’t have 1st or 2nd Amendment rights.
L
Forgive me if I have misread, Lurker, but you don’t seriously believe that the British, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders - or indeed the Dutch, Spanish, Norwegians or Danes, are slaves because they live in a constitutional monarchy, do you?
If you know where 3 individual ISIS terrorists are, such that you can kill them with a drone strike, then you likely know where most ISIS fighters are in Syria/Iraq.
So, why aren’t bombs raining down on these known targets?
Doesn’t Cameron, Obama, & Co. know that all of ISIS is dedicated to the destruction of the West, not just 3 of them? Didn’t these 3 take orders from someone, & that someone taking orders from someone higher up?
Why is it that ISIS only receives serious attention when it threatens the elites?
No, actually it hasn't been more recent than two decades ago. He said this in passing in one interview in 1994 - just over two decades ago, and he's never said it again since - I think partly because the statement got misrepresented into far more than it actually was - it was a statement about freedom of religion more than anything else and the precise translation of the Latin term Fidei Defensor.
He treats other religions besides his own with respect as long as they do not harm anybody. That doesn't mean he follows them, or has any intention of following them. And he speaks out against those who try to use any religion to justify harming others.
No. But they have to powers to pass laws about almost any issue they wish, and the Monarch only has the power to intervene in a very specific set of circumstances.
The Monarch can intervene over Parliament if a Prime Minister loses a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons and refuses to resign or advise a general election. The Monarch can intervene in a case where Parliament is unable to secure a budget that allows it to govern. The Monarch can intervene if Parliament attempts to prolong itself beyond its term in office. They could refuse to declare war if Parliament declared one (the Monarch cannot declare war without the approval of Parliament, but could theoretically block a declaration even if Parliament wanted one - I doubt it would happen, but it's within their power over Parliament).
The Monarch has no power to intervene over any other type of law that Parliament passes - except possibly if Parliament managed to pass a law that the Cabinet disagreed with (theoretically this is possible but the last time it happened was 1707).
Freedom of religion is not constitutionally guaranteed in Britain, so it doesn't fall into an area the Monarch has any say over - and you've already apparently been convinced a statement by the Prince of Wales that was intended to indicate that he believed freedom of religion should be protected - because that is what his "defender of faith" rather than only "defender of the faith" (the "reformed protestant religion" and most specifically the Church of England) statement was actually about, not what some people have tried to turn it into.
Just to expand on this point. The main control of Parliament becoming tyrannical is the fact that it periodically has to face reelection - and at that point, the people get to decided whether or not to allow a government to remain in office, or whether it should be replaced - and I suppose it is assumed that they would remove a government they regarded as tyrannical.
The Monarch's role in this is that historically they could compel an election even if Parliament and/or the Prime Minister does not want to call one. The British Parliament has recently moved to fixed terms which has reduced this power, but it would still exist if a government tried to ignore its term limits, or if some other crisis developed that had no clear resolution.
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.