Originally Posted by
theprestige
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.
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?