UK Shits Bed Before US

Originally Posted by LeHah

I have little doubt that it's a mirror image of what American will go through in the same extent.

Our executive branch has and is openly flaunting the power of Congress in multiple ways already. From Mccain's Torture Law which Bush "agreed" too, and then applied an executive statement saying that it did not effect the commander-in-chief. Which basically annulled the whole law. I could name more examples but it gives me a headache.

Furthermore there's limits to how much power the British laws can be enacted. There's no such limits on recently passed legislation like the Patriot Act. President Bush has argued that he can strip citizenship from Americans, declare them to be "terrorists", and deny them their rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Geneva Conventions. Little bit more serious.

Luckily for Bush, people are too stupid to know or understand their rights.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

Uh... the people? That's how the United States came to exist,

Not to mention the 'States is a heavily armed society. With an average of about three guns per household. Even without that factor, the government would find it impossible to maintain "order". Numbers alone would be the deciding factor.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by loyalist

Keep in mind that the UK has no written consititution.

True, but I was more or less talking about this law. Which does has limits.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

It's not like our Congress is any different from a literal House of Lords, anyway.

The House of Lords seems more like the Senate.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Am I the only one who notes the irony in a House of Lords defending democratic process?

Not really ironic to me. How many Senator Kennedys can you name? Senator Rockefellers? Almost the same deal.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Except for the minor difference of the Senate not being composed of titled nobility.

My point was that Kennedys and Rockefellers come as close to American nobility as they can get.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Which doesn't change the fact that they aren't entitled to their seats by virtue of being Kennedys or Rockefellers.

No it doesn't, nor am I arguing that. I was making a general comparison. Both last names wield incredible amounts of influence in politics and business. That their peers in the House of Lords hold in similar amounts.

I was speaking idiomatically.