From: jaspar2002us@yahoo.com   
      
   SUPERPOWER DEATH WATCH   
      
   02 11 13 Superpower Death Watch   
      
   WHAT THE SUPERPOWER’S    
   DECLARATION OF WORLD $LAVERY    
   MEANS   
      
      
      
      
   ===================================================   
      
      
      
   Before August 6, 1945    
      
   WHEN AMERICA WAS AMERICA    
      
      
      
   ===================================================   
      
      
   THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALASIA   
   Sir Henry Parkes, G.C.M.G.    
      
   [Knight Grand Cross, The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint   
   George]    
      
   [Excerpt from "The Federation Conference In Melbourne, 10th February, 1890"]    
      
   [Page 191]    
      
   Now, I have had occasion to point out the accusation against me that I had not   
   fairly outlined the Government which I for one would wish to see built up here   
   [in Australia].  That accusation I think I have fairly disposed of by quoting   
   a passage from the    
   first letter I wrote on the subject.  But I heard somebody, I think it was a   
   prominent member interrupt me when I spoke of an Australian union having a   
   privy council. "We want no privy council" the interruption was. It seems to me   
   that that interruption    
   clearly shows how little some hon. [honourable] gentlemen have thought on the   
   subject.  "We want no privy council," said the voice. I shall proceed now to   
   show that we do want this Privy Council.  (Hear, hear.)    
      
   The Privy Council of England is the greatest embodiment of the executive power   
   that I suppose is known in the world.  It has grown up by a system of   
   development through a thousand years, *from the time when the members of the   
   council were the mere tools    
   of the sovereign, until a time when they are the real advisers of the   
   sovereign*.  (Hear, hear.)    
      
   It has been developed into perhaps the most superior Executive Council in the   
   world.  I am going to show -—and I think it is worth my while to be at this   
   trouble—- *the difference* between the residence of the executive power in   
   such a body as the Privy    
   Council, of which our [Australian colonies'] executive councils are imperfect   
   imitations, and the depository of the executive power in a single great   
   officer, as in the United States of America.    
      
   Now, I hold in my hand a book published by a well-known lawyer [Henry C.   
   Lockwood], a member of the New York bar; and I need not tell hon. gentlemen   
   that some of the most distinguished lawyers of the United States are members   
   of that great bar. The title    
   of the book is "The Abolition of the President" [published in NY in 1884].    
   That will show that the question of the unwise arrangement of the exercise of   
   the executive authority in the United States has not escaped attention and   
   discussion.    
      
   In the first section, of the second article of that great document, the   
   Constitution of the United States of America, the executive power is vested   
   *absolutely* in the President of the United States; not vested with the advice   
   of any body, but absolutely    
   in the President of the United States. I am going to show this House how that   
   power has been used, notably in the case of two presidents who reigned supreme   
   in the United States each for eight years -—I mean President Jackson and   
   President Grant. I have    
   had occasion on former opportunities to point out how *the really great men   
   who framed the Constitution of the United States were largely guided by the   
   type of the English Government in the arbitrary days of George III.*  Close   
   observers, close    
   investigators, of the institutions of America have pointed this out time after   
   time: that *the model before those illustrious men was the Government of   
   Britain at its worst epoch, in the arbitrary days of George III.*    
      
   This writer [Lockwood] has this passage on the subject:    
      
   "That which stands out——"    
      
   I am only quoting for the purpose of drawing a contrast between the means   
   devised in England for the exercise of the executive power and the means   
   devised in the United States for the same object.    
      
   The writer of this book says:    
      
   [Page 194]    
      
   "That which stands out more prominently than anything in American history is   
   *the great similarity of our fundamental law with the ancient and obsolete   
   theories of the Constitution of Great Britain.*  The veto power of the   
   President is no exception to    
   this rule.    
      
   "The power of the two Houses of Parliament to frame laws was presumed to be   
   held in check by the king's negative, which could always be interposed to   
   prevent the adoption of an unwise or unnecessary statute.  Again, the   
   arbitrary exercise of the king's    
   right of veto was itself restrained by the power which Parliament possessed of   
   refusing a grant of supplies [tax and expenditure acts] for the service of the   
   Crown.    
      
   "The Presidents of the United States have vetoed more than one hundred bills.    
      
   "The Crown in England has not vetoed a measure passed by the Legislature since   
   the reign of Queen Anne [8 March 1702 – 1 May 1707], nor have the House of   
   Commons withheld supplies from the Crown since the Revolution of 1688.  Yet,   
   in free America, both    
   of the powers are exercised to-day, and the present Congress is hurling its   
   anathemas against the President, who, in his turn, replies by veto after veto   
   (1879).    
      
   "Congress proclaims that it will withhold the supplies if the President vetoes   
   its measures.  He does veto them, nevertheless.  Here is conflict,   
   antagonism.  Who is going to yield?  One must do so, or anarchy will ensue.   
   Although the ancient theory of    
   the veto was abandoned in England, it has survived with us. It was   
   specifically introduced into our law. All of the Presidents since Jackson have   
   regularly exercised it. Since the foundation of the Government, the veto power   
   has been exercised by the    
   Presidents of the United States about one hundred times."    
      
   Well, now contrast the conditions in the two nations.  The Bills which are   
   carefully passed through the two Houses of Congress have in a hundred   
   instances been vetoed by the Chief Magistrate in power; Bills similarly passed   
   in England, never since the    
   days of Queen Anne!  Now, I am going to show how this veto power has been used   
   in the United States, my object being to draw *sharper attention* to the   
   wisdom of creating a Privy Council for Australia.  I am particularly anxious   
   that hon. members should    
   hear this part of my case, because *it cannot well be understood without close   
   attention*.  General Jackson, who had two terms in the Presidential Chair   
   -—that is, for eight years he was a despotic sovereign, *more* despotic than   
   any sovereign of Europe.    
      
   Mr. J. P. ABBOTT: It was the people who made him!    
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)