Prince William

[James Deuce]

Not quite. She is a figure head who stops OTHER people NOT being figureheads. F'instance, the army are NOT , ultimately, accountable to the Prime Minister. They are under the command of the Queen (through her GG). Thus keeping final control of the armed forces out of political hands. For an example of what can happen when that is not the case , see Fiji. Ditto police.

The Army is the only branch of the NZ Armed Forces that doesn't have a royal warrant. The Air Force and Navy are under command of the Queen. The Army is not.

[James Deuce]

Our constitutional monarchy is benign and serves us well.

It's not constitutional monarchy if you don't have a constitution.

[Mully]

Meh.

If it's working(ish), why mess with it?

NZ has much bigger problems we should be focussing on before we look at the looxury of messing with the Status Quo.

And Skyrider's right - if we can't agree on how to elect the clowns that we have now, how can we be trusted with any more.

[Skyryder]

It's not constitutional monarchy if you don't have a constitution.

We do have a constitution in case law and we are a Constitutinal Monarchy. Our style of democracy or if you will another name is the Westminster System.

Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Which most emphatically does not provide for individual constitutional rights.

[Skyryder]

The Army is the only branch of the NZ Armed Forces that doesn't have a royal warrant. The Air Force and Navy are under command of the Queen. The Army is not.

Without openly disagreeing with the above the full title of the Gov. Gen suggests otherwise.

The full title of the role is that of "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand".


Others on here with a military service might know more. I only come from a military family.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Which most emphatically does not provide for individual constitutional rights.

Well if the courts don't provide for indavidual rights and this is where case law is derived from and with it our constitution whose rights does the courts protect?


Skyryder

[oldrider]

Well if the courts don't provide for indavidual rights and this is where case law is derived from and with it our constitution whose rights does the courts protect?
Skyryder

I have always "assumed" it was the protection of the rights of the "Crown"!

[Ixion]

Our consititution is largely unwritten, though there are specific documents that underpin it (Eg Bill of Rights, the real one not Geoff Palmers; Act of Succession - lying bit of propaganda though it is ).

Case law is not specifically related to the constitution, though , since the constitution is not embodied by statute, any challenge will probably be decided by case law. Case law is the embodiment of the common law, the corpus of understood law that has existed from Time Immemorial ,a legal term , usually meaning before 1199. In effect , a lot of our law and constituion is so old that there is no original document - it got lost 1000 years ago if it ever existed. It's stuff that every body has always agreed is so, and courts over the centuries have handed down decisions based on it - the "cases". So modern courts look at what previous courts said to determine "what" was previously reckoned to "have always been agreed".

[Skyryder]

I have always "assumed" it was the protection of the rights of the "Crown"!

In a crimnal court the Crown is the prosecuting party. The Judge adjudicates on behalf of both the defendant and the crown. Well that's the theory but in the case of my sig it never happened for the defendant.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Our consititution is largely unwritten, though there are specific documents that underpin it (Eg Bill of Rights, the real one not Geoff Palmers; Act of Succession - lying bit of propaganda though it is ).

Case law is not specifically related to the constitution, though , since the constitution is not embodied by statute, any challenge will probably be decided by case law. Case law is the embodiment of the common law, the corpus of understood law that has existed from Time Immemorial ,a legal term , usually meaning before 1199. In effect , a lot of our law and constituion is so old that there is no original document - it got lost 1000 years ago if it ever existed. It's stuff that every body has always agreed is so, and courts over the centuries have handed down decisions based on it - the "cases". So modern courts look at what previous courts said to determine "what" was previously reckoned to "have always been agreed".

You said it better than I could. For simplicity I was referring to 'our' constitution in the manner that you have described. We have what is euphemistically called an 'unwritten constitution' an oxymoran if there ever was one.


Skyryder

[Elysium]

We've done well without an Constitution so far so do we really need one? I mean America has one but look how many admenments their govenment breaks.

[crazyhorse]

Its good to see him back visiting the land where he took his first steps .......

[Trudes]

Its good to see him back visiting the land where he took his first steps .......

Funny how he still looks like that eh, just taller and balder. (I'm a fan of Harry, I like cheeky little boys... even if he's a ginga)

[crazyhorse]

Funny how he still looks like that eh, just taller and balder. (I'm a fan of Harry, I like cheeky little boys... even if he's a ginga)

I actually thought the same when I found the pic..... Harry, well, yes, he is a trouble making dare devil....