|
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. |
9th December 2018, 11:28 PM | #321 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
As I said before, you've stumbled upon the truth, but picked yourself up and pretended nothing happened.
The Queen does not regularly use the power you attribute to her. The logical conclusion of this observation, coupled with your premise, is that she doesn't actually have the power you attribute to her. |
__________________
"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 |
|
9th December 2018, 11:46 PM | #322 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Before any bill can be presented to the Queen or GG for RA it has to get through the House of Commons which is an elected chamber. There is no way that the Queen could control those politicians. They would be too afraid of losing their seats at the next election to conspire with the Queen.
I was assuming that the Senate is stacked with royal supporters who do the Queen's bidding without question. However, this isn't really true either. A Senator can't be sacked just because of the way they voted in the chamber so there is nothing to stop them following their own conscience. And once a bill is presented for RA, it is always given (unless you can present a counter example). |
__________________
"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 |
|
10th December 2018, 01:01 AM | #323 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; In this case, if the word 'each' doesn't mean 'every' province, what does it mean? Also note it says, "An amendment [...] may be made by proclamation issued by the Gov Gen [...] only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House [...]. The way it reads, it just means the Gov Gen can't make the proclamation on her own. S/He needs the consent of the legislature. But think about it. It is the GG that makes the proclamation. Clearly the proclamation comes from the Queen, the GG's boss. Is it written in the Con that the Queen can not refuse to issue a proclamation for an amendment? |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 01:15 AM | #324 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I agree. But I made clear there's no evidence to support it. So I wouldn't debate the issue.
My commons sense tells me anyone with power, particularly great power, is certainly going to use that power to further whatever agendas they may have. What does your common sense tell you? |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 01:23 AM | #325 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 01:36 AM | #326 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
The Queen doesn't control the politicians. They are self controlling. They do not conspire with the Queen. They just know the rules of the game. Don't forget they also deal with corporate interests, for example. Those don't necessarily come from the Queen, but she can still refuse RA should the need arise. The trick, and they do it well, is never let the need arise.
She 'always' gives RA because she's pre approved the legislation. The Con stipulates she MUST be apprised of any major financial bills before they go to the House. It's reasonable to assume all bill go through this process perhaps unofficially. It's not mandatory, but it would cut any problems in the bud. The squabbling that goes on has no real effect on the outcome. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 01:47 AM | #327 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Hang on, do you think the Queen personally gives Royal Assent to bills passed in Canada (and Australia, for that matter)? Or if not, that she is consulted about said bills? Governors are generally dragged kicking and screaming into Governor in Council meetings, where they have the onerous task of signing documents they have no understanding of and even less interest. Before their far more important task of opening fetes and flower shows.
Can you give a modern example of a bill not receiving Royal Assent? Didn’t think so. Your continued bleats of “but it could happen” fall on deaf ears. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
10th December 2018, 02:04 AM | #328 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
The issue is whether or not the Queen has supreme power over Canada.
The issue is not about how or when she uses her power. There's no evidence to go by, so it's not discussable. My common sense tells me people with tremendous power always use it. Your common sense may tell you different. That's the beginning and end of it. As for the real issue, I'm sure you've seen Articles #9 and #15 as written in the supreme law of the land. They make clear that the Queen's the boss. I've repeatedly asked for something legal that says anything to the contrary or that limits her power. Nothing of the sort has been forthcoming. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 02:22 AM | #329 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
10th December 2018, 02:32 AM | #330 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
If the Queen truly was just a figurehead, why should her power be enshrined in the Con? They could remove the power language and she could still be a figurehead. If the Queen agreed, don't you think a Constitutional amendment would be a cakewalk? And desirable? True independence in every way?
But the language remains. Do you think words in the supreme law of the land are simply ignored by all the elected officials? Do you think hose words are just some quaint anachronism? Wouldn't that mean the Con as a whole could be ignored? Do you think nothing ever happens behind the curtain? |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 02:35 AM | #331 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 03:21 AM | #332 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
|
|
10th December 2018, 03:21 AM | #333 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
|
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
10th December 2018, 03:39 AM | #334 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Bloody hell, how many times do you have to be told that constitutional amendments in the “colonies” require referenda? Incredible expensive ways of fixing something that isn’t broken.
Don’t get me wrong. I hope for another referendum in Australia to remove the Queen as head of state. Not because I think she would co-opt our army into a war against Canada or something, but it’s a sensible thing to do. But do I lose sleep over this? No. Because I know the Queen will do nothing that our government and the people who elected it doesn’t want, like denying Royal Assent. Come on, time for you to do a Fonzie. It’s not that hard to say you are wrong. I’ve said it here myself in regard to global warming. Oh, wait, you aren’t a global warming denier as well? To add to your anti-vaxxing position? |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
10th December 2018, 04:36 AM | #335 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,808
|
|
__________________
...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 |
|
10th December 2018, 04:51 AM | #336 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
10th December 2018, 04:57 AM | #337 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
|
|
10th December 2018, 04:59 AM | #338 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
10th December 2018, 05:18 AM | #339 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Hells, the Canadian MILITARY would feel betrayed if the Captain General were to command us to do something that was not in the interests of the people of Canada, and would be highly likely to refuse that as an unlawful command.
Part of the Canadian parliamentary tradition is the tradition of the Loyal Opposition - those people who do no hold the reigns of power, yet are still acting in what they perceive as the public interest to hold the Government to account. This is why Bills are debated in Parliament and even the opposition can suggest amendments to bills, instead of the governing party simply having the bill read in Parliament and then proceeding to the final vote, trusting to party discipline to ensure its passage. The other part that IB is overlooking is the weight of tradition and precedent. In the matter at hand, it is tradition and precedent that the reigning monarch governs with the advice of the Privy Council and does not act contrary to it. And in a country with an essential common law tradition, precedent as a means of interpreting the law has the same weight as written law. Essentially, none of the previous monarchs have taken as active a role as IB believes they can in Canadian politics, even if the strict wording of the Constitution allows them to, so it is less and less likely that the Canadian people would accept such an activist monarch as being within the bounds of their authority. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
10th December 2018, 05:41 AM | #340 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
"II ......... (full name), do swear (or for a solemn affirmation, "solemnly affirm") that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."
Oath taken on enrolment in the Canadian Forces. Those persons not wishing to take a religious oath omit the "So help me God." QR&O Art. 6.04 As RSM of a CAF Reserve unit I've been present for over 30 of these in the last year - same oath as I took when I enrolled nearly 33 years ago. Same one that I'm likely to continue to see taken for the foreseeable future. The part that is getting IB and is ilk up is the true allegiance part. True allegiance, as we in the CAF understand it and how it is explained to us prior to taking the oath, is that you are not offering blind obedience, you are offering service which may include opposing what is directed if what is being directed is contrary to law, contrary to the interests of the people (to whom HMTQ gave HER oath), or would "shock the morals or ethics" of the person to whom the order is being given. This ability to tell the person to whom you owe obedience "that's frakked up, and no I'm not doing that" is intended to prevent abuses of executive power, and also to give the person who is acting outside of the what is acceptable the chance to walk back the unlawful order or direction. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
10th December 2018, 06:08 AM | #341 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
And ultimately, all the power any government has is derived from the personal loyalty of men such as Border Reiver, who have taken these oaths. Should the Queen decide to step outside her traditional role as these men understand it, she will have no more power at all. If these men conclude that she has broken faith with Canada, and that their greater loyalty lies with Canada and its Parliament, then it is that Parliament which has all the power*. And that's the way it's always been, and always will be. Ultima Ratio Regnum only works if you have men to fire the cannons. *Legal Precedent: The American Revolution, in which men like George Washington who were previously loyal officers of the King decided instead to support the Continental Congress against that same King. |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
10th December 2018, 08:07 AM | #342 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
In a way you've got to admire the Itchy Boy version of the queen.
Imagine it, every day she's got to ensure that her loyal puppets in every level of Canada's government are towing the line and vetted, and that every politician of each party is following the covert plan, which is transmitted in such a way that no one outside of the hundreds of thousands of civil servants and army personnel, not even their spouses, is aware of it. Not only that, she's also got to do that for the UK, Australia and New Zealand too, and she plays it in such a way that it seems that all four countries are working in their own interest, rather than as a coherent block in world politics. And she does it in such a way that all four countries are reasonably well off. All this so she can exercise her supreme power in such a way that it is invisible to all so that it looks like as if the governments are just following the lines of the elected politicians. That is some next level political savvy there, and all this for a 92 year old woman, who looks like someone that needs subtle reminders of where her clothes are on a daily basis. All this, while she could have the SAME privileges by just rubber stamping laws without putting in all that effort. Sure, that is total common sense. |
10th December 2018, 08:31 AM | #343 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
10th December 2018, 09:33 AM | #344 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
Well, to be fair, if I was inclined to believe that there was one person in the world who could pull this off, it'd be Liz. She's done some **** in her time. ETA: https://www.businessinsider.com/quee...driving-2017-2 |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
10th December 2018, 09:52 AM | #345 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
10th December 2018, 09:58 AM | #346 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
10th December 2018, 10:00 AM | #347 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
10th December 2018, 10:14 AM | #348 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
It absolutely does. A law not enforced has no power, no force. There are plenty of old laws in Canada that are never enforced. They'd be thrown out of court if it ever became an issue.
The queen might be commander of the armies on paper, but as stated before, she doesn't use that power, and would lose it if she tried. You don't seem to understand how these laws and rules work.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
10th December 2018, 10:22 AM | #349 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Ah, now we're talking. You believe in a secret royal conspiracy whereby the UK monarch controls... what, the world?
Go to the conspiracy theories section, then.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, at least now we know where you come from, and we can treat your argument accordingly. I'd ask you for specific examples but I'm sure you'd retreat to your constitutional ivory tower immediately. |
10th December 2018, 10:33 AM | #350 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Based on your posts here, we have a pretty good idea.
Quote:
Theoretical evidence is trumped by practical evidence. You lose.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
10th December 2018, 11:41 AM | #351 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I quoted the supreme law from the Constitution. Not one of you has posted anything that trumps that despite innumerable requests.
You have no evidence, so you have to cry 'conspiracy', and make personal aspersions. You claim there's proof but you fail to provide it. Ask any Constitutional lawyer or 'expert' to produce any legally enforceable words that trump Articles #9 and #15. Ask them to produce any legally enforceable words that limit the Queen's power in any way. Or do it yourself. Get back to me when you have something. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 11:44 AM | #352 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
And we've responded, NUMEROUS TIMES, that the law is irrelevant if it's both never used and would result in said powers be removed were it used at all.
For all your whining about people not addressing your points, which is a lie, you've avoided responding to that in a meaningful way. |
10th December 2018, 11:46 AM | #353 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
You're the one who's posted a conspiracy theory. Don't be salty when people call a spade a spade.
Quote:
|
10th December 2018, 11:51 AM | #354 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
We're not talking about hypothetical "if the Queen should decide..." or precedent. (Legal precedent? - George committed treason, did he not?)
We're talking about who has the legally enforceable power over Canada. What don't you understand about this: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." "The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Is that legally enforceable or not? If not, why not? Now show me anything legally enforceable that supersedes or pertains to those articles. Not more precedent, custom, Convention. Show me something with teeth. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 11:52 AM | #355 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 11:54 AM | #356 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 11:54 AM | #357 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
10th December 2018, 11:57 AM | #358 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
You do realize that "mere precedent" is literally the underpinnings of all of common law, right? No, of course you don't. This is like the Anti-Freeman on the Land theory. Instead of the common law being all-powerful, it apparently has no power at all. Now, aside from all this, what is the point of your obsession with this aspect of Canadian constitution law? What do you expect us to do, if you manage to convince us that Liz really is secretly running everything? |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
10th December 2018, 11:59 AM | #359 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
So the Queen would lose her power if she tried to use it.
That's what many of you have been saying. According to that then, she does have the power you all keep insisting she doesn't have. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
10th December 2018, 12:07 PM | #360 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|