The leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state unanimously approved the changes to succession to the throne laws at a summit in Perth, Australia. The Commenwealth (used to be the pink bits on old maps) are actullay still around 54-nation organisation, which represents two billion people around the globe ranging from Canada, Australia, South Africa. New Zealand, and India to small West Indian islands such as Barbados and Grenada.
Under the old succession laws, dating back more than 300 years, the heir to the throne is the first-born son of the monarch. Only when there are no sons, as in the case of the Queen's father George VI, does the crown pass to the eldest daughter. So Princess Anne, even though Prince Charle's sister currently finds herself way down the pecking order when it comes to assending to the throne.
This is now no longer the case.
This change will apply to descendents of the Prince of Wales. They will not be applied retrospectively. So what it mans is that under the new ruling a first-born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge William and Kate) will take precedence over younger brothers. In other word, first come no matter what sex will be the next in line.
That was not the only rule that was changed, the ban on a future monarch marrying someone of any faith except a Catholic, which goes back to the days of Henry VIII has also been lifted. The actual monarch must still be in communion with the Church of England, because after all he or she is the head of that Church. But now they can marry a person from "any faith" without exception.
Barry Eva (Storyheart)
My Blogs:
Book Information and Things UK - Across the Pond
Book and a Chat Radio Show Guests - A Book and a Chat
Funny, Weird Or Just Interesting News From Around the World - Laugh I Thought My Trousers Would Never dry
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Was the Declaration of Independence legal?
Was the Declaration of Independence legal?
reported by BBC...
On Tuesday night, while Republican candidates in Nevada were debating such American issues as nuclear waste disposal and the immigration status of Mitt Romney's gardener, American and British lawyers in Philadelphia were taking on a far more fundamental topic.
Namely, just what did Thomas Jefferson think he was doing?
Some background: during the hot and sweltering summer of 1776, members of the second Continental Congress travelled to Philadelphia to discuss their frustration with royal rule.
By 4 July, America's founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.
"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”
Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.
It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.
At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall.
The event, presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray's Inn, London, pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.
For American lawyers, the answer is simple: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified," they say in their summary.
To the British, however, secession isn't the legal or proper tool by which to settle internal disputes. "What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right," they argue in their brief.
A vote at the end of the debate reaffirmed the legality of Jefferson and company's insurrection, and the American experiment survived to see another day.
It was an unsurprising result, considering the venue - just a few blocks away from where the Declaration was drafted. But did they get it right? Below are some more of the arguments from both sides.
The American case for the Declaration
Did the Founding Fathers have any respect for the law? The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.
The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.
The British case against it
The Declaration emerged from the second Continental Congress The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.
Barry Eva (Storyheart)
My Blogs:
Book Information and Things UK - Across the Pond
Book and a Chat Radio Show Guests - A Book and a Chat
Funny, Weird Or Just Interesting News From Around the World - Laugh I Thought My Trousers Would Never dry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)