ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada issues , Canada politics , monarchy

Reply
Old 6th December 2018, 07:55 PM   #121
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Name of publication and date please. You don't have to go all Turabian Bibliographic on us. The name of the publication where these "some people" say this and month will do.

ETA: These some people are wrong. Obama's father was a Luo, a tribe on the shores of Lake Victoria and geographically separated from the seats of power in Kenya, Nairobi and Mombasa. Though Kenyan (unlike Ugandan) tribes don't really do royalty as such, the Kikuyu are the dominate tribe in politics and any "royal" blood would likely be found in that group. His mother is a dry hole when it comes to royalty as well. She was born in Wichita Kansas and later moved to Hawaii. You might have had something had she been a Hawaiian native as there are still descendants of their royal family alive today.
I don't have what you're asking for and I don't care about the lineage of US Presidents. I was just responding to someone's question about it.
I made clear I didn't know anything about it.

Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
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
Old 6th December 2018, 07:59 PM   #122
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
One should be careful to not confuse power and authority. The law grants authority but not power. It's funny how one can have authority up until the point one tries to use it.
OK, then please explain the difference between power and authority and give us a few examples of each so that we may understand.
Thanks.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:01 AM   #123
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Here's another example.

The written Constitution says that no law can be passed without Royal Assent. We're told that under the Constitutional Conventions, the Queen always grants it. Giving the impression it's automatic. It's a given.

But the reality is that she CAN refuse and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It can't be resolved in court because it falls under the unwritten Conventions. And the written law, which the courts CAN rule on, clearly gives her the power to refuse. Of course the gov't knows that, so they would never even attempt to take the case to court.

The Queen probably does give Assent 'automatically'. That would be because she has approved of the law in principle before it goes through the Parliamentary process. But Assent is the final step before the bill becomes law and that's her failsafe in case the final version doesn't meet with her approval. In fact the Constitution states that in the case of major financial bills, she MUST give approval before the bill begins the Parliamentary process.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:07 AM   #124
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,404
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Doesn't really explain, Obama, Reagan, Carter, Trump or Clinton. None of them came from political bloodlines. There are a few Senators perhaps where politics is a family business and the Kennedy family is worth mentioning. When you look at our political class though, family dynasties are hardly the norm.
And to bring in a bunch closer to the Queen:
May, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Heath...

That takes us back to the 60s for the UK.
Tolls is online now   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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:08 AM   #125
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,936
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Some say there is, not only Obama but the Bushes and many if not most past U.S. Presidents.

I don't know how much truth there is to all that. I've done no genealogical research so I have nothing to offer on that topic.
Just throwing the "rumours" out there, eh?
Information Analyst 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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:11 AM   #126
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,969
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The vast majority of Canadians would tell you the Queen has no real power. The Royal Family is just a holdover from earlier times and its role is primarily ceremonial.

However, the Constitution, the fundamental Law of the Land makes crystal clear that the Queen has power over and above our elected politicians.

. . . yadda yadda . . .
Have you got a link to the text of the Canadian constitution? I haven't found one yet and it would be interesting to compare it with the Australian constitution. The devil is usually in the details.

Under the Australian constitution, the Queen her heirs and successors have a lot of power (including the right to disallow laws passed by the Australian parliament). That doesn't mean that the Queen would exercise those powers independently. If she did then Australia would become a republic quick smart.

Many countries in the British Commonwealth have become independent republics. The Queen rubber stamped those changes without question. The same would happen if Australia or Canada decided to go republic.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:18 AM   #127
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,969
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's another example.

The written Constitution says that no law can be passed without Royal Assent. We're told that under the Constitutional Conventions, the Queen always grants it. Giving the impression it's automatic. It's a given.

But the reality is that she CAN refuse and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It can't be resolved in court because it falls under the unwritten Conventions. And the written law, which the courts CAN rule on, clearly gives her the power to refuse. Of course the gov't knows that, so they would never even attempt to take the case to court.

The Queen probably does give Assent 'automatically'. That would be because she has approved of the law in principle before it goes through the Parliamentary process. But Assent is the final step before the bill becomes law and that's her failsafe in case the final version doesn't meet with her approval. In fact the Constitution states that in the case of major financial bills, she MUST give approval before the bill begins the Parliamentary process.
I suspect that it is actually more the case that the Governor General assents in the "Queen's name".

In Australia the Queen simply rubber stamps who ever the prime minister nominates for that position. Candidates are usually hand selected for their willingness to not make waves with the government. Ex military personnel are popular because they have been trained to do what they are told.

There has only been one instance where a Governor General sacked a prime minister (and certainly not at the behest of the Queen) though in the states some Governors have been a little more troublesome in the past.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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
Old 7th December 2018, 04:38 AM   #128
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, then please explain the difference between power and authority and give us a few examples of each so that we may understand.
Thanks.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the Queen. Canada, Australia and the UK all went to war in Afghanistan after 9/11 at the order of their own governments. Australia and the UK joined the US in Iraq but Canada did not. If the Queen were in command of all three armed forces why then did she not order Canada to send troops to Iraq as well.

Canada chose to curtail its involvement in the Pacific toward the end of the war. Churchill was not best pleased by this. Why didn't the King order Canada to maintain it's level of commitment?

Why, because the Queen/King might have legal authority be knowing their orders won't be obeyed they have no power. Anyone they order could simply not obey to no consequence.
Craig4 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
Old 7th December 2018, 04:41 AM   #129
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't have what you're asking for and I don't care about the lineage of US Presidents. I was just responding to someone's question about it.
I made clear I didn't know anything about it.

Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
You brought it up. So we may now assume you have never heard anyone say anything related to bloodlines. You lied when you wrote "some people say". It's was always just you.
Craig4 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
Old 7th December 2018, 05:01 AM   #130
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,291
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's another example.

The written Constitution says that no law can be passed without Royal Assent. We're told that under the Constitutional Conventions, the Queen always grants it. Giving the impression it's automatic. It's a given.

But the reality is that she CAN refuse and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It can't be resolved in court because it falls under the unwritten Conventions. And the written law, which the courts CAN rule on, clearly gives her the power to refuse. Of course the gov't knows that, so they would never even attempt to take the case to court.

The Queen probably does give Assent 'automatically'. That would be because she has approved of the law in principle before it goes through the Parliamentary process. But Assent is the final step before the bill becomes law and that's her failsafe in case the final version doesn't meet with her approval. In fact the Constitution states that in the case of major financial bills, she MUST give approval before the bill begins the Parliamentary process.
And as I mentioned, the last time a monarch *tested* that power the government was kind enough to give him a loophole to keep reigning, but the law was still passed. And had the Belgian king not taken the loophole it was made clear that the alternative was a republic.

Nothing you've said has shown that Canada would not take a similar path should the Queen decide to not sign, and there is no indication whatsoever that the Windsors are willing to take that risk. In other words, she does rubber stamp everything and she is a figurehead.
Lukraak_Sisser 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
Old 7th December 2018, 05:35 AM   #131
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,936
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And as I mentioned, the last time a monarch *tested* that power the government was kind enough to give him a loophole to keep reigning, but the law was still passed. And had the Belgian king not taken the loophole it was made clear that the alternative was a republic.

Nothing you've said has shown that Canada would not take a similar path should the Queen decide to not sign, and there is no indication whatsoever that the Windsors are willing to take that risk. In other words, she does rubber stamp everything and she is a figurehead.
So why do Constitutional monarchies hate the Constitution so much? I live in a country where if someone ever found a way to use the rules of the third amendment, a part of the Constitution almost never tested in over 200 years, I'm confident there would be strong compliance even if a lot of people hated it.

Why is a place so flippant about their own rules?
BobTheCoward 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
Old 7th December 2018, 05:55 AM   #132
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,291
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
So why do Constitutional monarchies hate the Constitution so much? I live in a country where if someone ever found a way to use the rules of the third amendment, a part of the Constitution almost never tested in over 200 years, I'm confident there would be strong compliance even if a lot of people hated it.

Why is a place so flippant about their own rules?
They dont hate the constitution, such a scenario creates a constitutional crisis and that can only be resolved by the dismissal of either the government or the monarch. New elections will then be held and if the government is then re-elected that means the monarch has lost the mandate to rule and is dismissed. Which will usually mean a republic. All according to the constitution.
Lukraak_Sisser 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
Old 7th December 2018, 06:02 AM   #133
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,161
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I suspect that it is actually more the case that the Governor General assents in the "Queen's name".
It’s even more remote than that. Governors have to, after all, open fetes and drink a fair share of booze. We have what’s called “governor in council” and I have had the experience of seeing some regulations I drafted in my days as a beaucrat receive “royal assent” via this pathway:

Quote:
The Executive Council is made up of the Premier and his or her Ministers who have been sworn into that office by the Governor, usually immediately after they have been sworn in as Ministers. The 'Governor in Council' is an important process through which the government of the day implements aspects of its business.
The role of the crown in Australia is a quaint, ceremonial and meaningless one.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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
Old 7th December 2018, 06:13 AM   #134
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,936
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
They dont hate the constitution, such a scenario creates a constitutional crisis and that can only be resolved by the dismissal of either the government or the monarch. New elections will then be held and if the government is then re-elected that means the monarch has lost the mandate to rule and is dismissed. Which will usually mean a republic. All according to the constitution.
What is the crisis? The paw got put down. That's the end of the line to that law. I'm sure it isn't the first time a law democratically popular didn't make it through the whole process to become a law.

Where is the requirement to resign?
BobTheCoward 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
Old 7th December 2018, 06:31 AM   #135
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,291
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What is the crisis? The paw got put down. That's the end of the line to that law. I'm sure it isn't the first time a law democratically popular didn't make it through the whole process to become a law.

Where is the requirement to resign?
There is all sorts of interesting legalese and ancient precedent, but it comes down to the fact that in order to be allowed to remain head of state and keep their palaces/income the royal houses in constitutional monarchies turned over their power to actually rule the country to elected bodies.
With the understanding that they would then abide by the decisions of said bodies.
If they then refuse to sign the laws the actual elected officials enact they break the agreement.
If the people then re-elect the government that means by proxy they reject the monarch.

In theory this is a safeguard to prevent a temporary majority government from enacting dictatorial laws as the monarch is not elected and therefore above the politicians. But it's mainly just tradition and pomp and circumstance.
Lukraak_Sisser 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
Old 7th December 2018, 07:04 AM   #136
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,578
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If something's on the books, it has the force of law. It does not lose the force of law just because it is not enforced. It still CAN be enforced at any time.
What you are consistently ignoring is the fact that simply because a law CAN be enforced, doesn't mean that it WILL be enforced. How laws are enforced is a matter of custom and practice as much as what is on the books.

This is also true for how governmental systems work.

Quote:
The Constitution is not just 'law'. It is the foundational legal document that defines what Canada is.
Not quite. The rules are there in the Constitution Act 1867 and the Constitution Act 1982 - the practice of how those rules are implemented has developed organically since prior to Confederation.

Canada is not defined by its Constitution, it is defined by Canadians and how we interact with each other and with non-Canadians. In practice Canadians tend to be cooperative, polite, and determined to do the right thing. I put it down to climate - since the First Nations decided this block of land needed some people on it, we learned that you're not getting through the winter without the help of others and the best way to do that is to get along with people, make the best of it, help each other through the rough spots and let out the pent up frustrations of life in a controlled manner on the sports field before everyone gets together for a pint or a cuppa.

Our Constitution reflects that - s.91 and s.92 of the Constitution Act 1867 lay out who does what, the Charter codifies how we expect everyone to treat other people and how we expect the State to treat us.

Quote:
If the Queen and the gov't came to loggerheads - say, about whether to send Canadian troops to some war or not, the gov't would have to take the Queen to court.
And yet this hasn't happened - the King/Byng Affair is the closest Canada and the Monarch have come to a falling out. And the end result was - no court action, and the monarch/governor general have never refused the advice of the elected representative of the Canadian people since.

Quote:
But they would never do that because the Constitution clearly states the Queen is in control of the Canadian military. The gov't has no case to begin with.
And yet, Canada has not always gone to war or acted at the same time as the monarch would like. We did not declare war on Nazi Germany until several days after Great Britain did, we did not go to war in the Falklands, nor did we send troops into Iraq even though Britain did. Our foreign policy has clashed with Britain on several occasions - notably over the issue of apartheid South Africa.

The practice is that the monarch, or the monarch's representative acts on the advice of the monarch's Privy Council (which is the current elected Cabinet and can consist of every previously elected Cabinet official).

Quote:
The only way the gov't could even have a case is if something exists that has the force of law and that directly affects Article #15. No such thing exists.
And yet the precedent set by the King/Byng Affair essentially directs that in practice, the ability of the monarch to act independent of or counter to the advice of the elected Privy Council is limited.

Quote:
That's why nobody here has been able to produce anything to show that the Queen is just a figurehead. Posters here have proclaimed that the Constitution is full of language that 'clearly defines the Queen's role as titular'.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a single example.
And you continue to ignore the practical examples of how the practice of government in Canada clearly renders the monarch a titular head of state.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   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
Old 7th December 2018, 10:11 AM   #137
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,733
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's another example.

The written Constitution says that no law can be passed without Royal Assent. We're told that under the Constitutional Conventions, the Queen always grants it. Giving the impression it's automatic. It's a given.

But the reality is that she CAN refuse and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Except that, no.

"Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is never withheld.

The sovereign is generally believed not to legally have the power to withhold assent from a bill against the advice of ministers. (Erskine May's, Parliamentary Practice (19th ed.), p. 562: "from that sanction they cannot be legally withheld.")(See 2 Hats. 339. 13 Lords' Journals, p.756, 3 Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, 354. 2 Burnet's Own Time, 274.)

The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708."

So no, the Queen cannot withhold her assent unless she is acting on the advice of ministers in doing so. She cannot just 'decide to'.

Of course, that's in the UK.


But all of this is really moot. In theory, the Queen could do all sorts of things. In practice, if she ever tried then she would be forced to abdicate, at best. Very possibly the requirement for royal assent would be removed. At worst, the monarchy itself would be abolished.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus 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
Old 7th December 2018, 11:46 AM   #138
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Just throwing the "rumours" out there, eh?
I was answering a question.
Is that how far you have to dig to find fault?
I'll take that as a compliment.
Thanks.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:00 PM   #139
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Have you got a link to the text of the Canadian constitution? I haven't found one yet and it would be interesting to compare it with the Australian constitution. The devil is usually in the details.

Under the Australian constitution, the Queen her heirs and successors have a lot of power (including the right to disallow laws passed by the Australian parliament). That doesn't mean that the Queen would exercise those powers independently. If she did then Australia would become a republic quick smart.

Many countries in the British Commonwealth have become independent republics. The Queen rubber stamped those changes without question. The same would happen if Australia or Canada decided to go republic.

We're not talking about republics or what would happen 'if'.
We're talking about what the Queen can and can't do.
And there's nothing written in law that says the Queen can't do something. If there is, then please show it to us.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/st...-vict-c-3.html
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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:04 PM   #140
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I suspect that it is actually more the case that the Governor General assents in the "Queen's name".

In Australia the Queen simply rubber stamps who ever the prime minister nominates for that position. Candidates are usually hand selected for their willingness to not make waves with the government. Ex military personnel are popular because they have been trained to do what they are told.

There has only been one instance where a Governor General sacked a prime minister (and certainly not at the behest of the Queen) though in the states some Governors have been a little more troublesome in the past.
I've explained the Queen is not obligated to rubber stamp anything.
The Gov Gen has no authority to do so. The Gov Gen obeys the Queen.

Show me anything that limits what the Queen can do. Anything.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:08 PM   #141
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,964
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I've explained the Queen is not obligated to rubber stamp anything.
The Gov Gen has no authority to do so. The Gov Gen obeys the Queen.

Show me anything that limits what the Queen can do. Anything.
Reality.


Do you know how many London taxi drivers didn't get arrested for not having a bale of hey on their taxicab?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:09 PM   #142
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
You brought it up. So we may now assume you have never heard anyone say anything related to bloodlines. You lied when you wrote "some people say". It's was always just you.
No, I didn't bring it up. Another poster asked me if I knew anything about it. I said 'some people say...' because I had read about it. But I never dug into it to see if any of it was true. I told the poster I didn't know.

You're the 2nd one that's had to really reach far to find fault.
But you, with no evidence or reason have accused me of lying.

Until you have something of value to add here, there's no point responding to you.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:16 PM   #143
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And as I mentioned, the last time a monarch *tested* that power the government was kind enough to give him a loophole to keep reigning, but the law was still passed. And had the Belgian king not taken the loophole it was made clear that the alternative was a republic.

Nothing you've said has shown that Canada would not take a similar path should the Queen decide to not sign, and there is no indication whatsoever that the Windsors are willing to take that risk. In other words, she does rubber stamp everything and she is a figurehead.
Showing what Canada or the Queen would or would not do is irrelevant and speculation.
We're talking about what power the Queen has and where is that power defined.

I've shown (repeatedly now) the Queen has legal power and authority over the gov't and Canada.

Show me something written that legally limits the Queen's power.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:17 PM   #144
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,463
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If something's on the books, it has the force of law. It does not lose the force of law just because it is not enforced. It still CAN be enforced at any time.
In practical terms, the force of the law depends on the willingness and ability of someone to enforce it.

Quote:
The Constitution is not just 'law'. It is the foundational legal document that defines what Canada is.
In theory. What Canada actually is in practice comes down to what Canadians are willing to put up with, and what their government is willing to push on them.

Quote:
If the Queen and the gov't came to loggerheads - say, about whether to send Canadian troops to some war or not, the gov't would have to take the Queen to court.

But they would never do that because the Constitution clearly states the Queen is in control of the Canadian military. The gov't has no case to begin with.

The only way the gov't could even have a case is if something exists that has the force of law and that directly affects Article #15. No such thing exists.
The government could simply refuse to comply with the Queen's orders. Let the Queen try to take them to court if she wants. Silver lining: As long as the government is embroiled in a constitutional dispute with the Queen, they aren't having to obey her orders.

Quote:
That's why nobody here has been able to produce anything to show that the Queen is just a figurehead. Posters here have proclaimed that the Constitution is full of language that 'clearly defines the Queen's role as titular'.
I don't know about the 'titular' language, but the Queen's role as figurehead is embodied not in the text of the document, but rather in the practical realities of the relationship.

That's the part you don't seem to grasp: The Canadian constitution doesn't have force if Canadians don't bother to abide by it and the Queen is unwilling to test it.

Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to provide a single example.
Good luck with that.
theprestige is online now   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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:25 PM   #145
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,248
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Gov Gen obeys the Queen.
The Governor General is supposed to obey the Queen. That doesn't mean they will.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:34 PM   #146
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
What you are consistently ignoring is the fact that simply because a law CAN be enforced, doesn't mean that it WILL be enforced. How laws are enforced is a matter of custom and practice as much as what is on the books.

This is also true for how governmental systems work.



Not quite. The rules are there in the Constitution Act 1867 and the Constitution Act 1982 - the practice of how those rules are implemented has developed organically since prior to Confederation.

Canada is not defined by its Constitution, it is defined by Canadians and how we interact with each other and with non-Canadians. In practice Canadians tend to be cooperative, polite, and determined to do the right thing. I put it down to climate - since the First Nations decided this block of land needed some people on it, we learned that you're not getting through the winter without the help of others and the best way to do that is to get along with people, make the best of it, help each other through the rough spots and let out the pent up frustrations of life in a controlled manner on the sports field before everyone gets together for a pint or a cuppa.

Our Constitution reflects that - s.91 and s.92 of the Constitution Act 1867 lay out who does what, the Charter codifies how we expect everyone to treat other people and how we expect the State to treat us.



And yet this hasn't happened - the King/Byng Affair is the closest Canada and the Monarch have come to a falling out. And the end result was - no court action, and the monarch/governor general have never refused the advice of the elected representative of the Canadian people since.



And yet, Canada has not always gone to war or acted at the same time as the monarch would like. We did not declare war on Nazi Germany until several days after Great Britain did, we did not go to war in the Falklands, nor did we send troops into Iraq even though Britain did. Our foreign policy has clashed with Britain on several occasions - notably over the issue of apartheid South Africa.

The practice is that the monarch, or the monarch's representative acts on the advice of the monarch's Privy Council (which is the current elected Cabinet and can consist of every previously elected Cabinet official).



And yet the precedent set by the King/Byng Affair essentially directs that in practice, the ability of the monarch to act independent of or counter to the advice of the elected Privy Council is limited.



And you continue to ignore the practical examples of how the practice of government in Canada clearly renders the monarch a titular head of state.
I'm not going to respond point by point because too much gets lost.

"Practical examples" are not law. In this case, practical examples are examples of how the smoke and mirrors work.
The examples do not 'render the monarch a titular head of state'.
The role of the monarch is enshrined in law. If the role was titular, then why would Article #9 be there? There would be no need for it.

You people seem to think the Constitution was written willy-nilly and that it doesn't really matter what it says.

You said:
"Canada is not defined by its Constitution, it is defined by Canadians and how we interact with each other and with non-Canadians."

You seriously need to look up the meaning of the word 'definition'.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:35 PM   #147
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,969
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show me anything that limits what the Queen can do. Anything.

From your link to the Canadian constitution I found this:
Quote:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, . . .
The Queen can't make laws by herself. She needs the consent of the Canadian Parliament.

I will have to look at the rest of the constitution at a later time. It seems to give the Queen a greater role than the Australian version does.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 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
Old 7th December 2018, 12:48 PM   #148
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Except that, no.

"Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is never withheld.

The sovereign is generally believed not to legally have the power to withhold assent from a bill against the advice of ministers. (Erskine May's, Parliamentary Practice (19th ed.), p. 562: "from that sanction they cannot be legally withheld.")(See 2 Hats. 339. 13 Lords' Journals, p.756, 3 Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, 354. 2 Burnet's Own Time, 274.)

The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708."

So no, the Queen cannot withhold her assent unless she is acting on the advice of ministers in doing so. She cannot just 'decide to'.

Of course, that's in the UK.


But all of this is really moot. In theory, the Queen could do all sorts of things. In practice, if she ever tried then she would be forced to abdicate, at best. Very possibly the requirement for royal assent would be removed. At worst, the monarchy itself would be abolished.
I guess you missed the posts where it was pointed out the Conventions are unwritten and therefore not legally binding.

"The sovereign is generally believed not to legally have the power to withhold assent from a bill against the advice of ministers."

See the weasel words? "generally believed". That in no way makes it true. In fact it's easily proven untrue. The Constitution clearly makes it legal to withhold consent. Why else would Assent be enshrined there?

The whole point of this thread was to expose the smoke and mirrors used to give the public the false impression that the Queen is merely a figurehead. All the resistance here is a testament to how effective the smoke and mirrors have been.

Show us something in writing that limits the Queen's power.
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
Old 7th December 2018, 01:00 PM   #149
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show us something in writing that limits the Queen's power.

Writing is just code in the Matrix, man. Take the red pill.

"What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken. Understand?"
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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
Old 7th December 2018, 01:19 PM   #150
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,666
Clearly the law and the Queen's role must bend to IB's understanding of it. THEN it all makes sense.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander 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
Old 7th December 2018, 01:45 PM   #151
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,936
Maybe this will clear it up....


...the queen asserting she has a role because of the Constitution is a lot like Fredo asserting he can handle things because he is the older brother. It is nominally, but no audience member says, "he has a point."
BobTheCoward 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
Old 7th December 2018, 01:48 PM   #152
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
From your link to the Canadian constitution I found this:

The Queen can't make laws by herself. She needs the consent of the Canadian Parliament.

I will have to look at the rest of the constitution at a later time. It seems to give the Queen a greater role than the Australian version does.
Thank you. You're the only one in this thread who has provided anything written in a legal document that has the force of law.

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, . . ."

All that says is it shall be lawful for the Queen to make laws. If the intent was that she MUST HAVE the advice and consent of the gov't then it would be written so in an unambiguous way.

Every bill starts with,
"Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:"

Clearly, Her Majesty is enacting the law. The phrase "by and with the advice.." is a sop to the gov't. Nowhere does it say she can't act without the advice and consent. SHE's enacting the law, not the gov't. It's clearly stated.

If the advice and consent were mandatory requirements then it would read more like:

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, but only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, . . ."

If you remove what's between the commas, the clause reads:
"It shall be lawful for the Queen to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, . . .". That's the gist. Nowhere does it say the advice and consent of the gov't are mandatory.

The field is full of weasel words and phrases like that to obfuscate the reality. The Queen's power is legally enshrined in an open manner for all to see. Anyone can read the Constitution. The most important parts, Articles #9 and #15 are written in plain language so anyone can understand. But the smoke and mirrors prevent most people from seeing the obvious.

But to disguise the Queen's power, there's a mountain of literature full of those weasel phrases. Like "The gov't rules while the Queen reigns".
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
Old 7th December 2018, 01:57 PM   #153
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Clearly the law and the Queen's role must bend to IB's understanding of it. THEN it all makes sense.
Says the guy who can't show us one word from the Constitution that he trumpets 'clearly defines the Queen's titular role'.

Why do you even bother posting here, Norman? Just to hear yourself speak? Just to prove you need to attack the person because you have no argument? Grow up!
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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:00 PM   #154
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,161
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

Why do you even bother posting here, Norman? Just to hear yourself speak? Just to prove you need to attack the person because you have no argument? Grow up!
The irony is extreme.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:22 PM   #155
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
If you were rich and powerful enough to significantly influence and change entire societies, would you want to people to know you're responsible for raising taxes, or limiting freedoms and other unpopular initiatives?
Would you set yourself up as the target for the public's anger?

Or would you employ front men and make it look like they were responsible so that they may take the flack? Every few years, when the public disgust for your front men reaches a peak, give them an 'election' where they can choose one of the new front men you've approved for the job. It doesn't matter which one gets elected because they're all in your pocket.

But people here seem to think the British royals at some point said, "Hey, we don't need or want all this power anymore. Let's give it to the people by way of a parliamentary system of gov't. We'll just busy ourselves posing for the cameras while we're cutting ribbons and watching Eskimos dance." We can shape the world and have done so because we're a long bloodline, a family, who's been in power for centuries. But now we'll turn that job over to politicians who only hold office for a few years.

Really? Does anything like that seem remotely plausible to any thinking person?
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
Old 7th December 2018, 02:26 PM   #156
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The irony is extreme.
That goes for you too. I made a claim and backed it with legal documents.
What have you done? You made a couple of weak stabs and then, like Norman, had to make it personal instead of about the issue.

Yes, you're quite the lion. Grow up!
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
Old 7th December 2018, 04:19 PM   #157
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,161
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you were rich and powerful enough to significantly influence and change entire societies, would you want to people to know you're responsible for raising taxes, or limiting freedoms and other unpopular initiatives?
Would you set yourself up as the target for the public's anger?

Or would you employ front men and make it look like they were responsible so that they may take the flack? Every few years, when the public disgust for your front men reaches a peak, give them an 'election' where they can choose one of the new front men you've approved for the job. It doesn't matter which one gets elected because they're all in your pocket.

But people here seem to think the British royals at some point said, "Hey, we don't need or want all this power anymore. Let's give it to the people by way of a parliamentary system of gov't. We'll just busy ourselves posing for the cameras while we're cutting ribbons and watching Eskimos dance." We can shape the world and have done so because we're a long bloodline, a family, who's been in power for centuries. But now we'll turn that job over to politicians who only hold office for a few years.

Really? Does anything like that seem remotely plausible to any thinking person?
This thread now belongs in the conspiracy section.

So must wrong in this post, but let’s just start with the Windsor bloodline. Goes back centuries, does it?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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
Old 7th December 2018, 04:50 PM   #158
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 20,313
I've no concerns whatsoever about Lizzie suddenly imposing her will on Canada or the UK. I'm less certain about Chuck.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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
Old 7th December 2018, 05:01 PM   #159
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,964
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I've no concerns whatsoever about Lizzie suddenly imposing her will on Canada or the UK. I'm less certain about Chuck.
Did you read the article in my link in post 44?

It's not going to be much use in dissuading you from that position.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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
Old 7th December 2018, 05:08 PM   #160
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,161
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Did you read the article in my link in post 44?

It's not going to be much use in dissuading you from that position.
Yes I read it. I suspect wise heads will try to talk Charles into abdicating immediately and letting William take over. But I’m convinced he will determinedly take the crown and proceed to make an utter fool of himself, which he has lifetime experience at.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.