Originally Posted by
Itchy Boy
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?
As I said earlier, another "but...but...but... the Constitution". It seems to be all you have.
I can state with certainty that nobody in this thread has denied that these words are as you say they are. I can also say with complete certainty that plenty of examples have been given to show that in practical day to day matters in the real world, the words are next to worthless.
But you cannot get past the first hurdle. And you do not even try to go past your only point. I also expect if you respond to this, or any other post, your reply will still be along the lines of "but...but...but... the Constitution".
Norm