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 7th December 2018, 06:00 PM   #161
Fitter
Illuminator
 
Fitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,086
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes, I've thought about the gender change issue and I don't know how that will be handled. Perhaps a constitutional amendment. But my take is that the word "Queen" essentially means the monarch. One way or another, whoever takes over, the Articles will apply to them. Or what? Will the Constitution be thrown out and rewritten?

So, do you think Articles #9 and #15 define a titular role? Can you quote anything from the Constitution that softens or alters the meaning of those clauses? Can you provide wording from the Constitution that you believe defines a titular role?
Have you seen the amending formula for our constitution?
Fitter 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, 06:04 PM   #162
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,959
Wait, if she did dent assent, why does the prime minister have to resign? Please be specific.
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, 06:06 PM   #163
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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?
You can discuss that with other posters if you like. I'm not interested.

This thread is about the Queen's power as defined in Articles #9 and #15 in particular. The few thoughtful counter arguments that have been given all are based on Convention, precedent, custom, tradition, etc, none of which carry the force of law. They are the smoke and mirrors that keep people from seeing the real situation as is evident in this thread.

Is it a conspiracy when the relevant information is in a legal document in the public domain? I haven't uncovered any secret documents or overheard any clandestine conversations. My claim is based on public information.
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, 06:07 PM   #164
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,959
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You can discuss that with other posters if you like. I'm not interested.

This thread is about the Queen's power as defined in Articles #9 and #15 in particular. The few thoughtful counter arguments that have been given all are based on Convention, precedent, custom, tradition, etc, none of which carry the force of law. They are the smoke and mirrors that keep people from seeing the real situation as is evident in this thread.

Is it a conspiracy when the relevant information is in a legal document in the public domain? I haven't uncovered any secret documents or overheard any clandestine conversations. My claim is based on public information.
The law you cite doesn't actually carry the force of law. Just like Fredo doesn't have the force of oldest brother.
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, 06:07 PM   #165
Fitter
Illuminator
 
Fitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,086
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Brexit is irrelevant to this discussion.

The British gov't did not manipulate any Canadian election to prevent anyone not loyal to the Queen from being elected. Nobody gets into a position to be elected to any high office unless they've demonstrated their loyalty for years before as they move up through the ranks. They don't move up the ranks unless they are loyal to the Queen, whom they have sworn allegiance to.
The erstwhile official opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
Fitter 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, 06:11 PM   #166
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,959
Does this conversation sound less ridiculous if we were discussing the force of law of Medvedev bas president?
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, 06:44 PM   #167
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Fitter View Post
Have you seen the amending formula for our constitution?
No. I only know it's a very involved process and requires a high degree of agreement. If the next monarch is male, I don't think there would be much fuss about changing "Queen" to "King".

But I'm pretty sure when the smoke settles, the Constitution will remain intact and fully in effect. Even if we're told it was 'suspended' for a day or two while the amendment was taking place. Nothing is going to change.

And, in the same way that it doesn't matter who is PM, it doesn't matter who is King or Queen. They don't act on their own, although technically they could, I suppose. The royal family is part of a global network of exceedingly wealthy and powerful people. As George Carlin said, "It's a club, and we're not in it."
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, 06:56 PM   #168
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Fitter View Post
The erstwhile official opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
OK, but what's your point? They've been wanting to secede since the beginning. It hasn't happened and it won't happen. We're moving towards a one world state where sovereign nations won't exist anymore. That's what the European Union is a step towards.

That's what these free trade agreements are all about. There was talk of a North American Union between the US, Canada and Mexico. It's been called different names, and flies mostly under the radar, but the three countries have for many years now, been "harmonizing" various rules and regulations "to make trade easier". But it's just a step towards an eventual political union with one gov't and one currency.

Once the world has been reformed into regions, eventually the regions will merge as well.

So even if the French did manage to secede, it would be a short lived victory.
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, 08:19 PM   #169
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,682
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No. I only know it's a very involved process and requires a high degree of agreement. If the next monarch is male, I don't think there would be much fuss about changing "Queen" to "King".

But I'm pretty sure when the smoke settles, the Constitution will remain intact and fully in effect. Even if we're told it was 'suspended' for a day or two while the amendment was taking place. Nothing is going to change.

And, in the same way that it doesn't matter who is PM, it doesn't matter who is King or Queen. They don't act on their own, although technically they could, I suppose. The royal family is part of a global network of exceedingly wealthy and powerful people. As George Carlin said, "It's a club, and we're not in it."
Yeah, there it is. Grand conspiracy theory No. 1.
__________________
...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, 08:21 PM   #170
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
Only you wrote the words "some people". Why did you write that if you knew full well you couldn't establish anyone making that claim? What could that be other then you dishonesty?
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, 08:24 PM   #171
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,642
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Yeah, there it is. Grand conspiracy theory No. 1.
It took a lot of posts for that to finally come out.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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, 08:27 PM   #172
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You can discuss that with other posters if you like. I'm not interested.

This thread is about the Queen's power as defined in Articles #9 and #15 in particular. The few thoughtful counter arguments that have been given all are based on Convention, precedent, custom, tradition, etc, none of which carry the force of law. They are the smoke and mirrors that keep people from seeing the real situation as is evident in this thread.

Is it a conspiracy when the relevant information is in a legal document in the public domain? I haven't uncovered any secret documents or overheard any clandestine conversations. My claim is based on public information.
And she had exercised this in a meaningful way. Has she committed forces to a war or uncommitted them in contravention of the wishes of the governments of Australia, NZ, Canada or the UK?


Power and authority, you should learn the difference lad.
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, 08:48 PM   #173
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,642
Well I'm convinced. QE2 has Canada by the short and curlies and no-one in the country has been bright enough to figure this out until Itchy Boy came along. When the population is told of this the rioting in the streets will make the current situation in Paris look like a walk in the park. I am worried for the future of my country!!!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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, 08:56 PM   #174
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,959
Canada's complete disregard for their own Constitution is taking off my list of acceptable countries to travel to.
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, 08:59 PM   #175
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,162
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Well I'm convinced. QE2 has Canada by the short and curlies and no-one in the country has been bright enough to figure this out until Itchy Boy came along. When the population is told of this the rioting in the streets will make the current situation in Paris look like a walk in the park. I am worried for the future of my country!!!
I’d like to know who the powerful families controlling the Queen are. I’m betting on a heap of Jewish names, with a couple of drug lords thrown in. After all, doesn’t the Queen control the world’s drug trade? I read it on the internet so it must be true.....
__________________
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, 09:14 PM   #176
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Well I'm convinced. QE2 has Canada by the short and curlies and no-one in the country has been bright enough to figure this out until Itchy Boy came along. When the population is told of this the rioting in the streets will make the current situation in Paris look like a walk in the park. I am worried for the future of my country!!!

*throws down the gauntlet*

That does it, enough is enough.

Time to riot my fellow comrades! Look out Ottawa... we're coming for you!


__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose 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, 09:34 PM   #177
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Yeah, there it is. Grand conspiracy theory No. 1.
It's neither a conspiracy, nor a theory. The existence of the Bilderberg meetings were once considered conspiracy theory, but now it's out in the open and they've been meeting since the 1950's.

What do you think 'globalism' is all about? How did the EU come about?
Did the people of all those countries campaign to lose their sovereignty?
Or was it a top down operation sold to the people as being the best way forward?

Have there not been a slew of corporate mergers and acquisitions over the last few decades? Is it not true that corporate and political power is consolidating all around us? That more and more power is accruing into fewer and fewer hands?

This is all public information, not a conspiracy theory.

Here's an interview with Norman Dodd. Worth watching the whole thing, but I draw your attention to the segment from about 17:40 to 21:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
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, 09:35 PM   #178
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
And she had exercised this in a meaningful way. Has she committed forces to a war or uncommitted them in contravention of the wishes of the governments of Australia, NZ, Canada or the UK?


Power and authority, you should learn the difference lad.
I asked you to explain the difference to me with a couple of examples.
Why won't you show us that you know the difference?
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, 09:43 PM   #179
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Only you wrote the words "some people". Why did you write that if you knew full well you couldn't establish anyone making that claim? What could that be other then you dishonesty?
Here's the origin of your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool
What about Obama's name/bloodline? Is there royalty in there?

I answered:
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.

If you want to misconstrue the clear meaning of my answer, maybe you're the one being dishonest.
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, 09:44 PM   #180
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,162
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's neither a conspiracy, nor a theory. The existence of the Bilderberg meetings were once considered conspiracy theory, but now it's out in the open and they've been meeting since the 1950's.

What do you think 'globalism' is all about? How did the EU come about?
Did the people of all those countries campaign to lose their sovereignty?
Or was it a top down operation sold to the people as being the best way forward?

Have there not been a slew of corporate mergers and acquisitions over the last few decades? Is it not true that corporate and political power is consolidating all around us? That more and more power is accruing into fewer and fewer hands?

This is all public information, not a conspiracy theory.

Here's an interview with Norman Dodd. Worth watching the whole thing, but I draw your attention to the segment from about 17:40 to 21:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
Ah, so it’s Bilderberg. Why did you leave it so long?

I’m sure all here know the nefarious nature of this group, but to refresh:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Meeting

Quote:
The undisclosed nature of the proceedings gave rise to several conspiracy theories.[32][13][33] This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the political spectrum, even if they disagree about the exact nature of the group's intentions. Some on the left accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[34] while some on the right have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy
Thread now closed?
__________________
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, 09:45 PM   #181
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Well I'm convinced. QE2 has Canada by the short and curlies and no-one in the country has been bright enough to figure this out until Itchy Boy came along. When the population is told of this the rioting in the streets will make the current situation in Paris look like a walk in the park. I am worried for the future of my country!!!
Lots of people know. Ask anyone from the Monarch Society. Maybe in your next post you could add something of value to the conversation?
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, 09:46 PM   #182
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,682
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
*throws down the gauntlet*

That does it, enough is enough.

Time to riot my fellow comrades! Look out Ottawa... we're coming for you!


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...b43eb67ef5.jpg
But first, a stop at Timmy's.
__________________
...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, 09:49 PM   #183
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I’d like to know who the powerful families controlling the Queen are. I’m betting on a heap of Jewish names, with a couple of drug lords thrown in. After all, doesn’t the Queen control the world’s drug trade? I read it on the internet so it must be true.....
Again you put words in my mouth. There are no powerful families controlling the Queen. What I said was the royal family is one of several that work together in common interest.

Haven't you heard that some gigantic portion of the world's wealth is held by a tiny portion of the population? You don't think those people are going to discuss common interests?
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, 09:50 PM   #184
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,682
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Lots of people know. Ask anyone from the Monarch Society. Maybe in your next post you could add something of value to the conversation?
You're flailing, lad. Here's a hint: The more you flail, the sillier you look. And the deeper you sink in the mire.

Hitch your star to a tired and thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory by all means. Enjoy. But one last piece of advice: DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST! M'kay?
__________________
...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, 09:52 PM   #185
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,162
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again you put words in my mouth. There are no powerful families controlling the Queen. What I said was the royal family is one of several that work together in common interest.

Haven't you heard that some gigantic portion of the world's wealth is held by a tiny portion of the population? You don't think those people are going to discuss common interests?
Yeah, yeah you have already told us it is Bilderberg.

Keep the laughs coming.
__________________
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, 09:54 PM   #186
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,682
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Again you put words in my mouth. There are no powerful families controlling the Queen. What I said was the royal family is one of several that work together in common interest.

Haven't you heard that some gigantic portion of the world's wealth is held by a tiny portion of the population? You don't think those people are going to discuss common interests?
If they had any control over their own vast and unregistered finances whatsoever, they would NEVER have let Trump become president of the USA, and NEVER have allowed Brexit to succeed. Because both of those are collapsing the very economies that (allegedly) keep this star council spectacularly wealthy.

Don't you think?
__________________
...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, 09:56 PM   #187
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Ah, so it’s Bilderberg. Why did you leave it so long?

I’m sure all here know the nefarious nature of this group, but to refresh:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Meeting

Thread now closed?
All I'm saying is that the meetings take place and the main attendees are among the world's power brokers. Is that true or not?
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, 09:59 PM   #188
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,162
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
All I'm saying is that the meetings take place and the main attendees are among the world's power brokers. Is that true or not?
What is true is that you are spewing out discredited conspiracy theory nonsense. Take it to a forum populated by fools. There are some here, but not many.
__________________
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, 10:03 PM   #189
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You're flailing, lad. Here's a hint: The more you flail, the sillier you look. And the deeper you sink in the mire.

Hitch your star to a tired and thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory by all means. Enjoy. But one last piece of advice: DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST! M'kay?
Again, this from the guy who SAYS he read the Consitution and found it chock full of descriptions of the Queen's titular role - but can't quote a single word to back his boast.

Now, Norman, every time you make a silly post like this, I'm going to remind you of what you said and your inability to support it.
I bet you didn't even read it like you said.
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, 10:04 PM   #190
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
What is true is that you are spewing out discredited conspiracy theory nonsense. Take it to a forum populated by fools. There are some here, but not many.
Is my statement true or not? Why can't you answer simple questions?
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, 10:23 PM   #191
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
If they had any control over their own vast and unregistered finances whatsoever, they would NEVER have let Trump become president of the USA, and NEVER have allowed Brexit to succeed. Because both of those are collapsing the very economies that (allegedly) keep this star council spectacularly wealthy.

Don't you think?
I can't explain the whole big picture here. Watch the Norman Dodd clip and tell me what you think.
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, 10:35 PM   #192
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,642
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Lots of people know. Ask anyone from the Monarch Society. Maybe in your next post you could add something of value to the conversation?
Adding value is something that I am rarely accused of here. I am just here for the entertainment.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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, 10:43 PM   #193
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Adding value is something that I am rarely accused of here. I am just here for the entertainment.
OK. Thanks for the heads 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, 10:51 PM   #194
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
By the same token, nowhere does it say that the Queen can enact laws without the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons.

However, with the right judges in the Superior court, your argument might stick assuming that the Superior court has final jurisdiction. This is the case with the high court in Australia. Originally, the constitution permitted appeals from high court decisions to the Privy Council in England. The Australia Act in 1986 (which was rubber stamped by the Queen) closed off this avenue.

I can't find anything in the Canadian constitution that gives the Superior court final jurisdiction. I guess that lies with the Queen herself. I have never heard of the Queen ruling that she can enact laws without going through the Canadian parliament but I guess it's theoretically possible.

Maybe Canada needs a constitutional court with final jurisdiction with judges appointed by parliament.
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 01:45 AM   #195
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
By the same token, nowhere does it say that the Queen can enact laws without the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons.

However, with the right judges in the Superior court, your argument might stick assuming that the Superior court has final jurisdiction. This is the case with the high court in Australia. Originally, the constitution permitted appeals from high court decisions to the Privy Council in England. The Australia Act in 1986 (which was rubber stamped by the Queen) closed off this avenue.

I can't find anything in the Canadian constitution that gives the Superior court final jurisdiction. I guess that lies with the Queen herself. I have never heard of the Queen ruling that she can enact laws without going through the Canadian parliament but I guess it's theoretically possible.

Maybe Canada needs a constitutional court with final jurisdiction with judges appointed by parliament.
Thank you for a thoughtful post.

The Queen would never dream of openly ruling that she can enact laws without going through Parliament. Any such move would give the game away. The public would realize their vote is meaningless and there would be big trouble. The system is designed keep the real power hidden. Hidden in plain sight as evidenced by Articles #9 and #15 in particular.

They use the phrase, "is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."
Essentially, the Queen gave Canada the Constitution so that it may be self-governing - to a point. The supreme authority over Canada belonged to the Queen before the Constitution, and the Constitution stipulates that her authority of and over Canada shall continue.

It's very straightforward. There is no higher law than the Constitution.
The written part is enforceable by the courts. The unwritten Conventions are not.
It's set up so that if push ever should come to shove, the courts have to go by what the Constitution says. And it's clearly 100% on the side of the Queen.
So the notion that the CONstitution gave Canada complete autonomy, leaving the Queen as a figurehead, simply isn't true.

If it ever went beyond that, to some kind of armed revolt, the Canadian Armed Forces have all sworn to obey their Command-in-Chief - the Queen, not the gov't.
And I can't see any reason it would ever get anywhere near that point.

Add to that the Queen is the 'Sovereign' and nobody, not the gov't nor the courts can tell the Sovereign what to do.

So in every legal sense, the Queen is top dog. The public is sold the idea that the Queen obeys the unwritten Convention rules and rubber stamps everything. The ruse is cemented in the public's mind because they only ever see her performing 'ceremonial' duties. We're not privy to any communications between the Queen and the gov't.
We don't know the frequency or nature of any directives that are handed down.
That part is well hidden from the public.

Now, if one believes that someone who has supreme power is not going to exercise it, then none of the above matters. That person will go on believing the figurehead fable despite any facts to the contrary.

The possibility that someone would not exercise their supreme power is, in my mind, as close to zero as it gets.
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 8th December 2018, 02:54 AM   #196
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,162
Conspiracy theory rubbish showing utter ignorance of how politics works in Canada.
__________________
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 8th December 2018, 03:40 AM   #197
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Queen would never dream of openly ruling that she can enact laws without going through Parliament. Any such move would give the game away. The public would realize their vote is meaningless and there would be big trouble. The system is designed keep the real power hidden. Hidden in plain sight as evidenced by Articles #9 and #15 in particular.
That sounds like an each way bet. On the one hand you say that the Queen won't exercise her powers in such a blatant manner and on the other hand you say that she will take advantage of the powers given her by the constitution.

There is no way that the Queen could covertly exercise her powers contrary to the wishes of the Canadian parliament or the Canadian people. If she tried then the whole world would know about it.

If she really wanted to meddle in Canadian affairs then she would only need to do what the corporate giants do: pay not-bribes to politicians to help them get elected to be her puppets. She could even hide her identity behind a string of corporations. She wouldn't need any special constitutional powers to do that.

That said, I don't like the Canadian constitution. Senators are appointed by the Governor General for LIFE! And if the Senate blocks a bill from the House of Commons then there is no way to resolve the deadlock. Ditto for the Canadian "Privy Council" (the equivalent of "cabinet" or "executive council"). There is no requirement for members to be MPs. And Ditto for the Superior Court.

However, there is no evidence that anybody is appointed to these positions without a recommendation from the governing party.
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 03:44 AM   #198
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,682
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I can't explain the whole big picture here. Watch the Norman Dodd clip and tell me what you think.
Old Normie has been dead these last 30-odd years. He was a bit of a crank before that. Are you related to him by any chance?
__________________
...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 8th December 2018, 04:31 AM   #199
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's the origin of your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool
What about Obama's name/bloodline? Is there royalty in there?

I answered:
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.

If you want to misconstrue the clear meaning of my answer, maybe you're the one being dishonest.
You said some people say. You can't tell us who these people were. You made a claim you can't support. That's intellectual cowardice at best and dishonesty at worst.
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 8th December 2018, 04:37 AM   #200
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I asked you to explain the difference to me with a couple of examples.
Why won't you show us that you know the difference?
World court systems are great examples of authority with no power. The ICC could in theory try all manner of war crimes. Only when they go after the wrong country, they get shut down. The World Court ruled against China on the Nine Dash Line. Notice them redrawing any maps lately? According to their charter, the court had the authority. It just got ignored.

Authority, no power.
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
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 02:55 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.