40th Anniversary of November 10, 1975, Huge Day in History (general, events, president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize I am jumping the gun by a few hours, and maybe this is the wrong thread. But this is the 40th anniversary of November 10, 1975, a day full of momentous and, except for the Australian one mostly disastrous events. And many Aussies would beg to differ.
Of the November 10, 1975 events that I know without Googling here are some highlights:
U.N. passes Zionism is Racism Resolution (link); and
Australia's PM Gough Whitlam fired by Governor-General (link);
The first event was memorialized by Gordon Lightfoot's immortal "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. A freighter full of iron ore and sailors sank in a wild, La Niña fueled storm on Lake Superior.
The U.N. resolution, passed by a newly automatic majority of Muslim and Communist governments, declared Zionism to be a form of racism and racial discrimination. It was repealed in 1991 but the odious automatic majority remains.
Finally, in Australia, the Governor-General, on his own, fired Gough Whitlam. Technically when a "money" or "supply" bill fails to pass the lower house in a Westminster-based system the government falls and the Queen or Governor General must allow the opposition to form a new government or call elections. In Australia it was the Senate, the equivalent of the House of Lords that blocked supply legislation. The PM urged that only the Senate be dissolved and subject to election. Instead the GG dissolved both houses and appointed the opposition leader as caretaker pending snap elections. Unheard of but in my opinion necessary.
Maybe we in the U.S. could use a Queen to dissolve governments that spend themselves into bankruptcy.
All kidding aside, one of the few defects in the Constitution was not creating a monarch or separation between a President and a Prime Minister. In such a system the monarch or President holds what is known as "reserve powers." That gives them the power to dissolve the government, allow the opposition to form a government or call elections.
I once explained to a friend that if Obama was running without a budget multiple years, in Canada or UK he'd be gone. Of course that's an oversimplification because in a constitutional monarchy or more typical presidential system the Parliament is often a "majority government" which means the PM can ram almost anything through that he wants. But I digress (and may start a separate thread on this issue).
As far as being able to "dissolve governments that spend themselves into bankruptcy" that's basically what happened in Australia in 1975. However, the "insinuendo" (a word I hear a lot in law, basically a conflation of "insinuation" and "innuendo") is that Whitlam was trying to pull a "Hugo Chavez" or "Indira Ghandi" and refuse to hold elections at all.
November 10, 1975 was a very boring and unimportant day, on my humble opinion.
Maybe the author of the thread was born that day....
Had you been a crewman on the Edmund Fitzgerald, or a Jew whose belief system had just been equated with racism by the United Nations, or involved in the Australian government -- or if you are anyone who finds any of these events to be interesting or significant -- I highly doubt that you would have found this day to be boring or unimportant.
Had you been a crewman on the Edmund Fitzgerald, or a Jew whose belief system had just been equated with racism by the United Nations, or involved in the Australian government -- or if you are anyone who finds any of these events to be interesting or significant -- I highly doubt that you would have found this day to be boring or unimportant.
But for 99% of humans on planet Earth, that was a boring and unimportant day.
All kidding aside, one of the few defects in the Constitution was not creating a monarch or separation between a President and a Prime Minister. In such a system the monarch or President holds what is known as "reserve powers." That gives them the power to dissolve the government, allow the opposition to form a government or call elections.
I once explained to a friend that if Obama was running without a budget multiple years, in Canada or UK he'd be gone. Of course that's an oversimplification because in a constitutional monarchy or more typical presidential system the Parliament is often a "majority government" which means the PM can ram almost anything through that he wants. But I digress (and may start a separate thread on this issue).
As far as being able to "dissolve governments that spend themselves into bankruptcy" that's basically what happened in Australia in 1975. However, the "insinuendo" (a word I hear a lot in law, basically a conflation of "insinuation" and "innuendo") is that Whitlam was trying to pull a "Hugo Chavez" or "Indira Ghandi" and refuse to hold elections at all.
Agreed. I am glad we didn't get to find out whether Whitlam was another Chavez or Gandhi (not "Ghandi").
Agreed. I am glad we didn't get to find out whether Whitlam was another Chavez or Gandhi (not "Ghandi").
Spelling fail. Oops.
From what I remember around that time there was talk that Whitlam was going dictatorial. He wouldn't commit to elections on Australia's three-year schedule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
