An Act for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland was denied Royal Assent. It was so on March 11, 1708. In the Gregorian Calendar this was March 22 – 302 years ago today.
Queen Anne of Great Britain and Ireland
It was Her Britannic Majesty Queen Anne who delivered the veto.
Never since has an act of the two houses of Parliament been denied Royal Assent. In this age of modern democracy, it has become unthinkable. Nor would it – like it or not – be politically acceptable.
We cannot expect minorities, tradition, or ancient liberties to be protected by the Sovereign against the will of the majority – or against politicos acting in its name.
Given the rate of constitutional revision these days, it would come as no surprise if this and other phantom powers were soon formally removed.
We are required in this age of mass democracy to put our faith in the wisdom of the masses and our right to vote amongst the millions – our right to pour a bucket of water in Lake Superior and watch the water level rise.
6 comments:
seems to me that there is no better person to give these powers to. the monarch isnt trying to be popular or win votes their job is secure. they therefore need only act in the best interests of the people. more power to the monarch i say
Yet a lot of today's so-called 'Democratically Elected" Presidents use this as their stock and trade. "Line item Veto" anyone?
"Nor would it – like it or not – be politically acceptable."
It would be acceptable to me. Not, however, to the modern political class who believe that they are the ones with a God-given right to rule.
Most of them don't believe in God. They have no deity but their own desires and ambitions.
Great and most helpful post. Please do not take this as a negative criticism of this blog, which is great and whicn I enjoy, but I think it is wrong to consider this a "veto". Since the sovereign exercises the supreme power, she was not forbidding or limiting an exercise of sovereignty (like the Roman tribunes who gave us the term veto), but refusing to enact into law the petition of her parliament. Thus "refusing assent" is better. To say "veto" is to concede to parliament the power to enact positive law, in short to say that parliament and not the monarch is sovereign.
Please do not take this as a negative criticism of this blog
No offense taken on my part, sir. I welcome such an input, and -- although I only speak for myself -- I am quite sure our proprietor and editor does too.
I think it is wrong to consider this a "veto". Since the sovereign exercises the supreme power, she was not forbidding or limiting an exercise of sovereignty (like the Roman tribunes who gave us the term veto), but refusing to enact into law the petition of her parliament. Thus "refusing assent" is better.
I must admit, sir, that I had never thought of it in that way before. Thank you for bringing it in.
Post a Comment