untermensche
Contributor
OK I just puked from the inanity of this so I can respond.Since when are Kings subject to judicial review?
This is just a sign the Republicans have nothing positive to add to any discussion. It's nothing but inane nonsense like this.
King Obama has undergone little review and substantive control by our own Parliament, a Royal freedom not seen since before 1689, and the Glorious Revolution. They reaffirmed Parliament's claim to control taxation and legislation, and provided guarantees against the abuses of power which James II and the other Stuart Kings had committed...no 'selective enforcement' and 'unilateral law making' by the Sovereign was tolerated. "The Sovereign was forbidden from suspending or dispensing with laws passed by Parliament, or imposing taxes without Parliamentary consent."
"Parliament tightened control over the King's expenditure; ... as one Member of Parliament said, 'when princes have not needed money they have not needed us'.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/Historyofth...IIandTheActofSettlement/MaryIIWilliamIII.aspx
Perhaps one day our Parliament will have such fine laws and Parliamentary rights.
Nobody except a bunch of crazies gives a shit about this issue.
I say bring in more people. Diversity is a good thing.