Category: Constitutions

Of marriage, race and contract

Posted on by David Landon Cole

While Jan Moir has been issuing her homophobic drivel and being roundly castigated by the internet, another story in the news of quite astounding bigotry caught my eye.

In Tangipahoa Country, Louisiana, a justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, refuses to give marriage licenses for mixed-race couples. Yes, you read that correctly.

The story first surfaced in the Hammond Daily Star. Mr Bardwell says he will not perform mixed-race marriages because the children will suffer as neither black nor white society will accept them.

I don’t want to get into a semantic discussion about whether this is racism. I would say that it is and, even if it isn’t, it’s simply flat wrong. I would like to point out some of the other screaming idiocies that this puisne justice has committed by his actions.

Firstly, he has awarded the state the right to choose those fit to breed.

Secondly, he has misapplied this principle in choosing a single category and not looking at others.

Thirdly, he has made childbearing a necessary consequence of marriage.

Fourthly, he has made the ability to contract marriage contingent on the approval of the state.

Fifthly, he has ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, where the unanimous opinion said, inter alia

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

Sixthly, in so doing he has violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)

Seventhly, he has legalised the tyranny of the majority by making social acceptance a condition of action

Eighthly, he has confused correlation with causation and taken his small number of instances to be indicative of the bigger picture

Ninethly, he has done what he thinks is just; his role is to enforce justice. That may or not be just, but it is not his place to second guess the law in this way.

Tenthly, he has not realised that the election of a biracial president suggests, at the least, that the mood is changing.

His actions, or rather inactions, are a travesty of justice. He apparently intends not to restand for the office of justice of the peace when his term expires on the last day of 2014. I hope we do not have to wait that long for him to be removed from office.

xD.

The London polity

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The London Evening Standard is to become a freesheet, the BBC report. thelondonpaper was pulled by News International last month. We are now down to three, non-specialist, London-wide newspapers, the ES, London Lite and Metro. I’m excluding things like Sport, Shortlist and City AM.

This is not good. We will shortly only have two newspapers in London. Television and radio news for London is largely a joke, with the possible exception of the City Hall slot on BBC1’s Politics Show.

London has a population on the order of seven and one-half million. If it were an independent country, it would rank ninety-second out of two hundred odd, behind Burundi and ahead of Switzerland. In terms of GDP per capita, it would be third, behind Luxembourg and ahead of Norway. It is a population, financial and cultural centre. In other words, London matters. From the point of view of the UK, London really matters. What happens within London matters. The politics and governance of London matter.

However, there is no London polity. It is starting to develop on the internet, but the lack of coverage of London politics in traditional outlets (including, I would add, the Standard) suggests that the desire for coverage of the politics of the city is not yet there (or at least not yet recognised). Of course, it’s hard to see to what extent that desire exists, or to generate it, without that coverage. We find ourselves in a catch-22. I think that greater awareness of the existence of London as an important political entity below the national, UK level would be a good thing, for the reasons I describe above. Perhaps the development of some sort of London national sentiment would help, although that has historically required the generation of an imagined community through what Benedict Anderson refers to as print capitalism. Given that we need better and wider supervision of London governance in order to make the same London governance work, I think we have to use the inelegant principle that when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow; perhaps giving powers to London similar to those Wales had after the first devolution might be a start.

xD.

UPDATE 1550 – I’d like to flag up a couple of posts relating to the London Evening Standard by the Tory Troll and 853.

The influence of the Crown

Posted on by David Landon Cole

On the 6th April [1780], Mr. Dunning moved … ‘that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.’

– Erskine May, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III, Ch. 1, available free online here.

If the constitutional settlement that comes down to us from the Glorious Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights means anything, it is that the Crown does not interfere in the political life of the country – no political patronage, no advocacy and certainly no interfering with democracy. The heir apparent cannot be separated from the reigning monarch for three reasons. Firstly, it would be too easy for the heir apparent to be a means for the monarch to avoid the restrictions on their action. Secondly, the heir apparent receives a stipend from the state and the Duchy of Cornwall; they are bound by the same constitutional principles as the monarch. Thirdly, they can effectively give the imprimatur of the state – without recourse to Parliament.

It is worth remembering that the first grievance in the Bill of Rights reads

Whereas the late King … did endeavour to subvert and extirpate … the laws and liberties of this kingdom; by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament

While it might no longer be a matter of life and death, Chelsea Barracks is the largest urban brownfield site in the EU and were sold for £959m – no trifle. Moreover, the Prince’s actions over Chelsea Barracks are an interference in the lawful action of a private citizen in a manner not approved by Parliament.

Prince Charles, as we know, has been interfering in the democratic process by advocating his preferred architects*. However, it goes beyond this.

Through the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, there is criticism with a crest of ‘orthodox’ medicine and advocacy of homeopathy and chiropractic, amongst others.

Through the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment, there is the promotion of the old against the new.

Through Duchy Originals, there is distortion of the market and a removal of opportunities for small companies to enter the organic market.

I do not mean to diminish in any way the work of the charities supported by the Prince. However, his recent comportment, leading to damage to the constitutional settlement and criticism for his action, can be said to be favourable neither to the charities nor to the country. If the Prince is prepared to make a quiet phone call to advance the interests of one of his favoured architects, who is to say that he will not do the same to force a business’s hand?

All the other activities the Prince undertakes carry the same risk. Advocating these things aren’t necessarily bad – with the exception of the dangerous guff and nonsense spouted about medicine. If, in Bagehot’s phrase, the monarchy is the dignified part of the constitution, they must both remain and be seen to remain dignified; that implies a step’s removal from society. If their cause is worthy, none of the charities supported by the Prince would struggle without his involvement. If they are dependent for survival or eficacy on his involvement, the monarchy is entering into the political realm. I would add that there is a difference between an established society looking for a royal to be a patron, and a royal setting up a society to promote a particular interest.

One day, Charles will be King. It should be clear that intervention by the monarch in a democratic process of our country would provoke a constitutional crisis. I feel that the same principles apply to the heir apparent. I fear that the future King, even if he doesn’t breach this important principle of the constitution, may by his past actions weaken it unless it is made clear that there will be no repeat of the interference. Mr Dunning’s motion of 1780 seems appropriate now.

xD.

* – While that was going on, I was reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. There seemed to be certain comparisons to be made between the naf style of pastiche favoured by the cultural elite in the novel and those favoured by Prince Charles. Everything has to be old; anything contemporary is a priori bad.

The succession to the British monarchy

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Seeing as everyone’s talking about the monarchy in general and Prince Harry in particular, it’s worth pointing out that history only gives William slightly better than even odds of ascending the throne and acquiring all sorts of other fun titles.

Queen Anne succeeded William III (who sort of succeeded himself, as he’d previously been coregnant with Mary II); however, Anne’s father, James II had previously been King. The next monarch was George I; he was the closest Protestant relation to Anne. Not, though, particularly close; counting Catholics, he was fifty-first in line to the throne. George II was actually George I’s son. George II’s son, Frederick, predeceased him, and his grandson, George III ascended the throne. George III was succeeded by his son, George IV. George IV passed the throne to his brother, William IV, who in turn passed it onto his niece, Victoria. Victoria was succeeded by her son, Edward VII, who was succeeded by his son, George V. George V was succeeded by his son, George VI, and then his son, Edward VIII, who promptly abdicated in favour of George VI. On his death, the throne passed to his daughter, Elizabeth II.

In other words, since the Acts of Union of 1707 that created Great Britain, the heir apparent has become monarch only six out of eleven occasions. Of course, things are rather less turbulent at court (and, for the most part, less important) than in the past. However, this is as much accident of history and Elizabeth II’s longevity as anything else. If, say, we had a series of general elections where there was no clear winner, the monarch, having perhaps to successively choose between the party with most seats and the party with most votes, could become really quite important. I would hope that people are considering this already; I would prefer to have a definite arrangement rather than leaving it to whim and caprice. Now, even if Prince Harry doesn’t become king, he may go for a role as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, as Prince Andrew does at the moment. It may be a little hard for him to go to Israel, Pakistan or the Arabian world given his taste in fancy dress and nicknames.

xD.

Continue reading “The succession to the British monarchy” →