Proponents of the idea believe that a constitution that has evolved bit by bit over a long period of time and across a bunch of different charters and unwritten agreements/customs is stronger that one that's done all in one shot. You'll see the unflattering metaphor that "a tree is stronger than a weed", which seems a bit unfair but it's reasonable point -- if not one that's beyond argument or anything.
Commonwealth countries are politically conservative, small "c" and not big "C", as the general attitude is "if it ain't broke don't fix it, even if it's objectively kind of stupid". There was a good reason for every one of the decisions that led to today, don't &^%$ with it, just in case.
The key word in "constitutional monarchy" is "constitutional", not "monarchy". The monarch must follow the parliament's requests, and not doing so is unconstitutional. Parliament is sovereign, at least in all of the countries that derive their monarchy from the UK's.
Outside of the UK there wouldn't be a fight anyway: in all the Commonwealth countries (except the ones that have since gone fully republican), the monarch has a representative called "the governor general" who is selected by the Parliament and recommended to the monarch at which point see above. The monarch has to take the advice of who is to be their governor-general. Issues basically never get to the monarch for them to mess anything up. The loyal-to-his-country deputy gets first crack at everything the monarch does in theory and has no reason to go against Parliament. If somehow the g-g or the king did speak out, it'd be a legal mess but everyone would ignore them. Practically we'd either get ourselves a new monarch or just say to hell with it and become a republic.
To answer your specific question then, yes, it's pro forma. The monarch's role is to be the embodiment of all legislative, judicial, and executive power, in a fairly close analog to what the American Constitution is. But the Constitution can't exercise any of those powers and the monarch can't either. It's just a historical oddity that they can walk and talk, unlike a piece of paper.
Though the split happened because the Soviets thought they should be master of all Communist countries and the Chinese had different ideas on the topic.
In the case of velocity, all neutrinos move at essentially the speed of light (they have the slightest amount of mass which slows them down, each of the three types of neutrino a different mass compared to the other two but still very, very, extremely low masses). Only neutrinos less than 2 eV are noticeably slower than light, and that's quite a low energy. The almost-exactly-light-speed has been confirmed by, among other methods, comparing bursts of neutrinos from supernovas and other intense sources to the photons coming from the same sources.
The photons move at the speed of light by definition and MeV and GeV energy neutrinos show up in detectors at the exact same time down to as close as we've been able to measure it (roughly one part in a billion, I think it is).
Yes, but it doesn't matter enough. The square-cube law means that the mass being supported goes up faster than the area of the layer doing the supporting does. So each additional brick on the bottom still ends up carrying more weight as the pyramid gets taller.
Depends on the compressive strength of the material. Sooner or later the weight of the pyramid above the base exceeds the base's ability to support it. Considering that a mountain is basically a stone pyramid, Everest has to be in the neighbourhood of how tall you could go -- call it 10-12 kilometers high. Other materials would do better.
I'm fond of the Imperial County of Reuss, which was semi-independent in the Holy Roman Empire. The madlads named all their rulers "Heinrich", resulting such personages as Heinrich LXXII ("Heinrich the 72nd").
More recently there's the Saar Protectorate, which the French encouraged to become a fully independent country after WWII. But the inhabitants wanted nothing to do with it and rejoined West Germany.
My mother's cat stares for food from one side of her chair and then, after being fed, stares from the other side of the chair because that is clearly a different kitty who has not been fed yet.
Paul Drye @ pauldrye @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 22Joined 7 mo. ago
Ps-ps-ps-ps-ps-ychiatric Help