Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
I was abit rusty and checked the UK on Wiki, as I understood it does indeed have parliamentarism, even a very rigorous one, so I'm bit confused on your earlier comment on the UK not having a proper legislative branch.
[/ QUOTE ]
The executive is made up of the largest party in the legislature, and party discipline is extremely strong. I think the party leadership have only been defeated over a piece of legislation 3 times in the last century, which means any claims of separation of powers are pretty much ridiculous.
[ QUOTE ]
I forego the technicals, ie. if we assume your elected british nazi party did NOT remove the legislative branches, judicial branches or something similar (which in practice I think is close to impossible but w/e, this is hypothetical anyway) they would have to pass probably thousands of acts of law to make their policy legitimate, and the passing those laws would effectively seize the principles of equality and freedom of religion to exist within your borders and you would have gone from being a modern democracy to being a 'tyranny of majority' - which is a fairly complex legal term used when discussing this very issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
AFAIK 'tyranny of the majority' is not a legal term at all. But this post illustrates precisely my point - you would argue that this hypothetical regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights, while the ACers would argue that any regime would be a tyranny of the majority because it violates certain rights. So we really need an account of why you believe in some rights and not others. This is what the question really boils down to.
|