Text 6787, 155 rader
Skriven 2010-04-09 14:25:43 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Hello Robert,

On Thursday April 08 2010 14:09, you wrote to me:

 MV>> When a law is conceived it is first offered to the "Raad van State".
 MV>> That is an advisory body that - among other things - checks for
 MV>> complience with the constitution. When it finds a conflict, it may
 MV>> offer suggestions for changes and return it to cabinet.

 RB> "Suggestions"? And if they're ignored?

Then it is up to parliament to judge if cabinet ignoring the suggestion of the
Raad van State was justified. If they judge not, they can reject the law.

 MV>> There may be sevarl rounds. Next step is that it is offered to
 MV>> parliament. They too may offer suggestions for change. Then there
 MV>> is the senate and when it is passed in te senate, the queen signs
 MV>> it and it comes into effect.

 RB> I see "suggestions", nothing binding.

When cabinet refuses to implement the suggestions for change, parliament can
refuse to pass the law.

 RB> Who or what decides _bindingly_ whether a law, once passed, is
 RB> constitutional or not?

The final judge is the authority that is last in the chain of course. Once the
last in the chain with the authority to judge has ruled, than it is final.
Anyone disagreeing after that, just has to live with it.

How does that differ from the situation in the US? Other than the difference
that in the US, it is the Superme Court that is last in the chain and in The
Netherlands it is the Senate?

 RB> Or do you have to go to the European Court of Justice to get a hearing
 RB> on such things?

Where do you go in the US when the Supreme Court has ruled and you disagree?

 RB>>> OK, so what is? Why not answer Dale's question?

 MV>> Dale has not answered my question either. He has not answered the
 MV>> question "what happens in the US when the supreme court passes a
 MV>> law that violates the constitution"? There is no answer to that
 MV>> question as *by definition* the supreme court has the last word on
 MV>> the matter. If they say there is no conflict with the
 MV>> constitution, then there is no conflict. Period.

 RB> True, but as the Supreme Court passes no laws,

"Pass" in th sense that they rule a law does nor conflict with the
constitution.

 RB> the question itself was and is meaningless.

As in "what is north of the North Pole".

Same as in "what happens when the Dutch senate passes a law that violates the
constitution".

 RB>  The Supreme Court judges cases that have already gone through the
[..]
 RB> I know that's a bit complex, but that's the situation in the States.

And the situation in The Netherlands is different. What more is there to say?

 MV>> When all steps have been taken and the highest authority has
 MV>> spoken, discussion ends. In the US, it is the supreme court that
 MV>> has the last word, in The Netherlands it is the senate. Asking
 MV>> what happens if they are wrong, is a question as meaningless as
 MV>> asking "what is north of the North Pole".

 RB> Not quite.

What is different regarding "when the one who has the last word has spoken,
disussian ends"? What is different regarding the meaninglessness of asking
"what if they are wrong?"?

 RB>  The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, i.e. are
 RB> not subject to any political pressure (or can ignore it at will).

So the guardiand of democracy are not elected and they are not accountableto
anyone. That raises the question of "who guards the guardians?"

 RB> How about your senate? Are the members also appointed for life?

No, they are elected for four years.

 RB> Or are they subject to political pressure that they - if they want to
 RB> be re-elected or re-appointed - must bow to?

Yep. When they make the wrong decision (in the eye of the voters) they pay the
price next election.

Unless the members of the USC, who can do whatever they like and there is no
way to correct them if they go berserk.

 RB>>>  Democratic ones, naturally.

 MV>> Democratic by who's standard? One again I remind you that the US
 MV>> model isn't the only one.

 RB> No, there's England too. Your country's system is modelled similarly.

Are you the expert on The Dutch system now?

There are several important differences between th UK and the Dutch system.

 MV>> A system where the villagers gather every Friday night and decide
 MV>> on the matters at hand, is an example of a perfect democracy.

 RB> Fine. Now all we have to do is eliminate a few billion people for that
 RB> to work.

I was just giving a clear example of a democratic system without a written
constitution.

 MV>> I have explained that the main purpose of Dutch constitution was
 MV>> to restrict the power of the king. It has served that purpose very
 MV>> well. The king (or queen) has hardly any power left. The real
 MV>> power is with parliament.

 RB> And who controls parliament?

Who controls the US Supreme Court?

 RB> C'mon, don't try to claim "the people" or I'll have to laugh again.

Then laugh all you want. Because that IS the answer.

 MV>> No, it is not. Once again THE US SYSTEM IS NOT THE ONLY one.

 RB> Nor, my good, friend, is the Dutch system. Which you appear to
 RB> pre-assume in every word you write.

Where did I say that? All I said is that is is DIFFERENT.

 MV>> The Dutch constitution serves a different purpose than that of the
 MV>> US. It does not serve the purpose of restricting what laws
 MV>> parliament and senate may pass. It serves to restrict the power of
 MV>> the king. Something totally different.

 RB> In that case it isn't really a constitution in the sense we normally
 RB> use the word,

Forget the "we". It may not be a coinstitution in YOUR sense of the word, but
WE (The Ductch) call it a constitution and spo to us it IS a constitution. That
it is not the same as the US constition is what I have been saying all along.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)