In the vein of the Durham Report quotes

I am in the process of skimming through a book, The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State, on the roles of legislatures in constitutional democracies when I came across the following passage in the forward:

This distinction between judicial and legislative roles is not therefore between principle and policy, because both institutions can and should act in principled ways. It is rather between ruling narrowly and legislating broadly, whether the rulings are a matter of principle or policy. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the difference between how courts and legislatures are typically designed to work and how they work best in supporting a constitutional democracy. Legislatures most often make egregious mistakes when they try to rule on single, high-visibility cases for politically expedient purposes. Courts correspondingly most often make egregious mistakes when they rule in ways that go far beyond what can be confidently inferred from the merits of the actual case or cases at hand.

I think that this is probably a pretty good way of thinking about the respective roles of legislatures and the judiciary. I am a little embarrassed that I hadn't explicitly thought about such distinctions before now.

Edit: The more I think about it the more I realize that this perspective is a little ahistorical, at least in the Canadian/Westminister tradition. Private Bills, for quite a while, were a major component of the legislature's work. And I can't help but think that issues relating to the setting of precedents are reasonably somewhat relevant to the rulings passed down by the judiciary.

Maybe my early excitement was a bit hasty.

A Few Quick Notes 277

-Today seemed pretty nice, though I didn't have chance to make it outside to experience it in person until after 11:00 PM tonight.

-While doing some research earlier this evening I happened to come across a blog called Lords of the Blog. It seems that the contributors to this blog are Peers and that it is updated on a relatively regular basis. I was somewhat surprised to find such a blog, I know I would have a hard time imagining that Canadian or American Senators participating in such a venture.

The blog links to a number of blogs of other British politicians, including the mayor of London, and former Conservative MP, Boris Johnson. I am much less surprised to see that Boris Johnson has a blog, though I was surprised to see how frequently he posts. I would have imagined that being the Mayor of a major European city would have slowed his blogging down to nothing more than a trickle, though this doesn't seem to be the case.

-Several moments prior to coming upon the previously mentioned blogs, I happened to be looking through the House of Lords Hansard from March 22, 2004 when I came across the following quote from Lord Peston

"in the committees that I have chaired or been a member of, that we proceed by consensus. I have never chaired a committee in which I have allowed a vote. Of course, I do not believe in votes anyway, I believe in reason."

I was a little surprised to learn that Lord Peston was a Labour peer, and that he is a life peer rather than a hereditary peer.

-A few minutes ago I had to make a late night trip to the grocery store to pick up some Fisherman's Friend throat lozenges. Based on the degree that this first was has given me I am starting to wonder why I didn't make the the trip earlier today. Unfortunately, I am not really starting to feel out of it. I guess I should probably try to get some sleep soon.

-A few days ago I started reading Alligator by Lisa Moore (I found this author profile by an acquaintance of mine). So far, which is about 100 pages, I am quite impressed. It has kind of put me in the mood to read more Newfoundland fiction. As I have Percy Janes' House of Hate and Michael Winter's The Big Why I should be set for some time, if this the reading path I chose to take. An alternate path would be to acquire the third book in Evenlyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, Unconditional Surrender, and finish that set of books off.

Blog-off
Cameron: 32
Neil: 1

Elective Dictatorship vs. Elected Dictatorship

Recently I have noticed what seems to be a difference of usage in the United Kingdom and Canada. In writings from the UK one frequently finds the term 'elective dictatorship' used while in Canada it seems that the synonym 'elected dictatorship' is preferred.

The other thing that is rather noticeable about the difference is that in the United Kingdom the phrase is associated with a particular individual, Lord Halisham. I feel that this phrase, and the name of the person to whom it is attributed, came up in almost every class I took during my year at Keele. One seemingly couldn't say 'elective dicatorship' without referencing good old Lord Halisham.

In Canada we don't ever refer to the origin of the phrase 'elected dictatorship,' we just use it. Presumably, though I don't have any evidence to support my claim, this phrase is a bastardization of Lord Halisham's original. The crossing of the Atlantic caused it to become corroded and slightly reduced in elegance.

I think that I prefer 'elective dictatorship,' though I don't have a particularly good reason. Maybe it is because 'elective dictatorship' seems to indicated that the process doesn't happen just one time, we continue to use the system. 'Elected dictatorship,' on the other hand, could mean an instance in which a dictator was elected and then remained for as long as they saw fit. There was no assumption that as dictator they would ever face another election.

On a related note, I finally found the source and text of a quote that I read some number of years ago and have been since misquoting.

"I have heard many arguments which influenced my opinion, but never one which influenced my vote." attributed to Sir James Ferguson, 1832-1907. The quote was included as an epigraph in the article Constitutional Reform: A Modest Proposal By Leonard Tivey.

Things I have come across in the past few days

The following are selections from texts that I have been reading in the past few days. Typically the reason that each section caught my eye should be fairly obvious.

From ‘Miami and the Siege of Chicago’ by Norman Mailer (New York: Signet: 1968):

Chicago is the great American city. New York is one of the capitals of the world and Los Angeles is a constellation of plastic, San Fransisco is a lady, Boston has become Urban Renewal, Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington wink like dull diamonds in the smog of Eastern Megalopolis, and New Orleans is unremarkable past the French Quarter. Detroit is a one trade town, Pittsburgh has lost its golden triangle, St. Louis has become the golden arch of the corporation, and nights in Kansas City close early. The oil depletion allowance makes Houston and Dallas naught but checkerboards for this sort of game. But Chicago is a great American city. Perhaps it is the last of the great American cities (p. 85)

From the article “Broadening Concerns for Intellectual Freedom” by Everett T. Moore in ‘The Library Quarterly’ (1968: Vol. 38, No. 4: p. 309-314):

Why wave the red flag of intellectualism in the faces of some of our best friends? (p. 309)

From the article “Censorship of Books by the Library” by Margery Bedinger in Wilson Bulletin (1929: Vol. 3, No. 21: p. 621-626):

With writing whose only intent is frank salaciousness, I have nothing to say. There has never been doubt among librarians as to how it should be treated. (p. 621)

We all know what tremendous changes the automobile has made in our way of living, how it has affected home life, the relations of the sexes, economic and industrial conditions, bringing all parts of the country near together and revolutionizing farm life. In the light of this knowledge, who can day what greater changes, what more acute social problems, what differences in mental attitudes the airplane will bring about! (p. 622)

Librarians are a very homogeneous group; with negligible exceptions we come from the same sort of families, have had the same sort of (and here’s the pity) sheltered upbringing, moved in the same protected and genteel circles all our lives, and to crown all, our ranks consist overwhelmingly of one sex; very, very largely of unmarried members of that sex. (p. 623)

The sheltered, protected girl is more handicapped when she tries to cope with the world and form just, wise decisions than any other sort of normal person whatever. (p. 624)

O, my sisters, we have thought that upon us lay the heavy burden of guarding the morals of the youth, 90 per cent of whom could tell us many things, and the funniest of all, we really thought we had the wisdom and ability to do it! (p. 624)

And if, contrary to my contention, it were best to pick and choose what young people should know, I still maintain that it is presumptuous and indeed absurd for the ordinary librarian to do the picking and choosing; when we have especially trained people for the Intermediate rooms, then perhaps those people might. But if it must be done (and remember, I firmly believe it should not be done) I should far rather have a committee of child psychologists, juvenile court judges, probation officers, and trained psychiatrists pass upon the books, than leave it to the personal reaction of women, or men, not widely experienced in life and knowing little of the difficulties and attitude of youth in the changing world today. (p. 625)