![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Sideface:
Well that's fake for starters, Trump's hands are the same size as Elon's.
So, Prince Harry wont be deported. I didnt realise he is an illegal immigrant. Fortunately, there is a clause apparently, that if the POTUS doesnt like an illegal's wife, he will take pity and leave the illegal in the US.
I do seem to remember MAGA being very anti Prince Harry and expecting that Trump would try to get rid of him.
They seem to consider Harry and Meghan to represent everything they oppose, so need to be exiled.
There are other reasons why you may not like the couple, but MAGA have different motivations.
Eric Trump's One-Sided Feud With Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Hits A New Low
https://www.thelist.com/1700364/eric-trump-one-side-feud-prince-harry-meghan-markle-hits-new-low/
Though Harry in his book did talk about drug taking which would have caused him problems with immigration.
Trump might not deport Prince Harry as 'favor to King Charles ..
Trump pressed to release Prince Harry’s immigration file — which could prompt deportation if he lied about drug use
https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/us-news/calls-mount-for-trump-to-release-prince-harrys-immigration-file-which-could-prompt-royals-deportation/
Very true!!
tdgeek:
Luxon or Adern cannot make it law as they are just CEO's not dictators with absolute power
Actually, in a way, they are holders of absolute power. The PM commands the cabinet and the largest bloc of votes in Parliament. Whatever Parliament makes as law, is law. So to the extent that the PM can keep enough of their MPs voting for them, they can indeed pass whatever laws they want. And if the majority of the party MPs think there are votes in agreeing with the PM, they toe the line.
The flip side of that is that if, for example, the Treaty Principles Bill did somehow become law, it would simply be reversed by the next change in government. The same is true of the Regulatory Principles Bill, or the veto-holding Treaty Commissioner floated by Te Pāti Māori. Or, the next government could keep those bills and pay lip service but actually utterly ignore them whenever it suits as they sometimes do, say, the Bill of Rights Act when a court calls them out on it. It's a blessing but also a curse, because as we saw at the end of 2023, an incoming government can simply invoke urgency to ram through repeals of everything the previous government did in a matter of weeks no matter whether it actually had any merit or not, or whether the new government actually has any concepts of a plan to replace it (*cough* Three Waters *cough*).
It gives me indigestion to suggest that Seymour might be right about anything, but it is probably time to have a (serious) national conversation about our constitution. Written constitutions such as the Australian or US ones are very hard to change - but by the same token, that also limits the power of governments to trample all over our fundamental rights on a whim.
Ultimately however it all comes down to the willingness of the people to generally agree to be governed, and/or the officials to agree to enforce the laws. As we see right now in the US, there are a few brave souls who are attempting to resist, but it can't last - Trump has true believers in all the right places and can override all the objections either by having Congress pass a law to give him the authority to do what he wants to do (e.g. DOGE letting 'BigBalls' get access to Treasury payment systems) or appealing everything to the Supreme Court knowing they'll say it's all cool.
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
SaltyNZ: Actually, in a way, they [Ardern, Luxon] are holders of absolute power. The PM commands the cabinet and the largest bloc of votes in Parliament. Whatever Parliament makes as law, is law. So to the extent that the PM can keep enough of their MPs voting for them, they can indeed pass whatever laws they want.
Nonsense. The NZ Prime Minister and the NZ government generally, including the cabinet, are responsible to parliament. If a majority over 50% of the elected representatives in parliament decide they don't like the current prime minister or cabinet for reasons of scandal or policy implementation or whatever, parliament can vote "no confidence" and dissolve the government. Instantly.
The United States has no such constitutional arrangement and has no such provision in the constitution, at all. There is provision for impeachment for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". That is all.
The President of the USA cannot be removed simply because billionaires are appointed to run the country or runs the country in a way that people find objectionable. Even in the unlikely case where 100% of Congress and 100% of the Senate did not like billionaires being appointed to cabinet or some other action of the President - there is no power to remove the President.
gzt:
Nonsense. The NZ Prime Minister and the NZ government generally, including the cabinet, are responsible to parliament. If a majority over 50% of the elected representatives in parliament decide they don't like the current prime minister or cabinet for reasons of scandal or policy implementation or whatever, parliament can vote "no confidence" and dissolve the government. Instantly.
Yes, of course they are. When was the last time that happened? The GG can do it on their own as well, as could the king. When was the last time that happened?
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
This is the Trump topic and you clearly wish to discuss NZ primarily in this case.
I have shown that USA presidents and NZ prime ministers are clearly not equivalent.
I'd be happy to continue the discussion of NZ prime ministers in the Luxon topic, where coincidently various other statements from NZ's soon to be deputy prime minster Seymour are currently being discussed.
Paraphrasing- “'God save the King, because nothing will save the Governor-General”
Could it happen here, well it could but we hope not.
Whilst the difficult we can do immediately, the impossible takes a bit longer. However, miracles you will have to wait for.
ezbee:
I do seem to remember MAGA being very anti Prince Harry and expecting that Trump would try to get rid of him.
They seem to consider Harry and Meghan to represent everything they oppose, so need to be exiled.
There are other reasons why you may not like the couple, but MAGA have different motivations.
Eric Trump's One-Sided Feud With Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Hits A New Low
https://www.thelist.com/1700364/eric-trump-one-side-feud-prince-harry-meghan-markle-hits-new-low/
Though Harry in his book did talk about drug taking which would have caused him problems with immigration.
Trump might not deport Prince Harry as 'favor to King Charles ..
Trump pressed to release Prince Harry’s immigration file — which could prompt deportation if he lied about drug use
https://nypost.com/2025/01/23/us-news/calls-mount-for-trump-to-release-prince-harrys-immigration-file-which-could-prompt-royals-deportation/
"I do seem to remember MAGA being very anti Prince Harry and expecting that Trump would try to get rid of him."
He shouldnt take it personally, Trump is exiting anyone and everyone that doesnt line up with him, the Constitution or Statues are not relevant......
SaltyNZ:
tdgeek:
Luxon or Adern cannot make it law as they are just CEO's not dictators with absolute power
Actually, in a way, they are holders of absolute power. The PM commands the cabinet and the largest bloc of votes in Parliament. Whatever Parliament makes as law, is law. So to the extent that the PM can keep enough of their MPs voting for them, they can indeed pass whatever laws they want. And if the majority of the party MPs think there are votes in agreeing with the PM, they toe the line.
The flip side of that is that if, for example, the Treaty Principles Bill did somehow become law, it would simply be reversed by the next change in government. The same is true of the Regulatory Principles Bill, or the veto-holding Treaty Commissioner floated by Te Pāti Māori. Or, the next government could keep those bills and pay lip service but actually utterly ignore them whenever it suits as they sometimes do, say, the Bill of Rights Act when a court calls them out on it. It's a blessing but also a curse, because as we saw at the end of 2023, an incoming government can simply invoke urgency to ram through repeals of everything the previous government did in a matter of weeks no matter whether it actually had any merit or not, or whether the new government actually has any concepts of a plan to replace it (*cough* Three Waters *cough*).
It gives me indigestion to suggest that Seymour might be right about anything, but it is probably time to have a (serious) national conversation about our constitution. Written constitutions such as the Australian or US ones are very hard to change - but by the same token, that also limits the power of governments to trample all over our fundamental rights on a whim.
Ultimately however it all comes down to the willingness of the people to generally agree to be governed, and/or the officials to agree to enforce the laws. As we see right now in the US, there are a few brave souls who are attempting to resist, but it can't last - Trump has true believers in all the right places and can override all the objections either by having Congress pass a law to give him the authority to do what he wants to do (e.g. DOGE letting 'BigBalls' get access to Treasury payment systems) or appealing everything to the Supreme Court knowing they'll say it's all cool.
I get what you say, but our PMs dont have absolute power. Some scenarios, yes, but in general their party got voted in, the PM is the CEO. If the party and its coalition if thats the case, had absolute power by virtue of seats, thats fine. The population voted for that.
kingdragonfly: Donald Trump's task force to "eradicate anti-Christian bias" is a complete waste of time
His executive order on the subject didn't include a single example of this so-called bias.
That didn't stop his cronies from passing a string of no-trans-in-sports laws despite being unable to come up with a single example of this being a problem.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |