View Single Post
Old 10th December 2018, 06:20 PM   #378
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My common sense tells me that your actual argument is something like this:

1) The Queen has tremendous power <= you haven't actually established this

2) Therefore, the Queen is using her tremendous power <= depends on begging the question of (2)

3) However, there's no evidence of the Queen using tremendous power.

4) Therefore, the Queen is using her tremendous power in secret, where we can't see it. <= depends on begging the questions of (1) and (2).
Common sense also tells me that the most reasonable explanation for why there's no evidence of a thing is that the thing itself doesn't exist. Certainly many people in this thread have gone to great lengths to explain to you that while the Queen has some authority on paper, in practice that authority is unusable - the tremendous power you refer to doesn't actually exist.

Look at it this way: Whoever can destroy a thing, controls that thing. In this case, Canadians can erase the Queen's on-paper power simply by choosing to ignore her commands. So much for her supposedly "tremendous" power.

You're basically forced to claim - as you have done now - that there is a secret power being used, for which we have no sign or signal or evidence.

Not only that, but even if we accepted for the sake of argument that the Queen has tremendous power that she wields in secret, it wouldn't be the empty powers granted by the Canadian constitution. It would be whatever powers her faction has brokered in secret with the other secret power brokers. For all we know, the Windsors lost Canada to the Rockefellers in a game of cards a hundred years ago.

If your thesis is actually that the Queen wields tremendous power in secret, then Canada's constitution is a red herring and a waste of your time. You should be working on your evidence of a secret cabal that wields tremendous power, regardless of what's written publicly on paper.

But really, if you're claiming that the Queen is part of a secret cabal of power brokers, it helps if you first show that such a cabal exists. It's a lot easier to show that Canada exists, but you should not take the easy path. If you want credit for your ideas, you'll need to do the work, no matter how hard it is.
Don't conflate arguments here. My claim is that the Queen has power over our elected officials. Nothing else. I offered some speculation about using her power but I'm not making any claim. That's a matter of opinion. That she has power is a matter of fact.

I'm learning that speculation around here tends to be taken as a claim, so I'll try to refrain from speculating about anything.

Back to the facts.
How would you parse these 2 sentences?

"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."


Can you explain, why they're meaningless or not enforceable? Has anyone ever challenged these Articles in the supreme law of the land? Have they ever been tested in court? Exactly how have they become meaningless. Do you think the Queen would agree with you?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top