|
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. |
18th December 2018, 01:11 PM | #721 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
|
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
18th December 2018, 01:11 PM | #722 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Where was the Constitution Act 1867 written?
In other words, who wrote it? Did anyone other than a Canadian, New Brunswicker, or Nova Scotian write it? Were any modifications to the Constitution Act 1867 done without the consent of the Parliament of Canada? Where was the Constitution Act 1982 written? Did anyone other than a Canadian write it? |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 01:24 PM | #723 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I could be wrong, but I believe the Constitution Act, 1867 was basically the BNA with a few changes. If that is so, wasn't the BNA written by the British?
If the Constitution's purpose was to grant Canada real independence or autonomy, and it was written by Canadians, why on earth would they write in that the monarchy shall retain all its powers - executive authority and Command-in-Chief, RA and more? I just can't make any sense out of that. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 01:31 PM | #724 |
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 01:38 PM | #725 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
The Constitution was written by Canadians (or people who were working towards becoming Canadians), and only ever modified by Canadians - that would imply that Canadians have/had authority over the Constitution.
Formal authority is one thing, but if it is never exercised except at the behest of another is it actual authority? |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 01:46 PM | #726 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
When I said the distinction was relevant, I was referring to this from Wiki:
"The court concluded that the Prime Minister had a constitutional right to advise the Queen of Canada on exercising her Royal Perogative. However, in this case, the Prime Minister's advice was to a 'foreign head of state', and subsequently Elizabeth II did not receive the Prime Minister's advice in her capacity as Queen of Canada;[...]" |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 01:51 PM | #727 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Lord, you really don't know ANYTHING about how the Canadian Constitution came about, what it is and how the Canadian government works do you?
The Constitution Act 1867 was the British North America Act with a name change and in 1982 ceased to be an act of the British Parliament, but rather a purely Canadian affair. Essentially, prior to 1982 our Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and changes to it needed to be confirmed by that body. That being said, the original act was written by Canadians, all the amendments were written by Canadians and approved by the British Parliament with no debate. While the British Parliament had formal authority to amend the Constitution Act 1867 without reference to Canada, it never did. Practically, the British Parliament was a rubber stamp for the Canadian Parliament and the Monarch quietly gave assent in accordance with the advice of Her Canadian Privy Council. Affirming the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 02:07 PM | #728 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Yes, it is. Authority is the one who has final say. And that is by law, the holder of formal Authority.
If 'formal' authority means nothing, why then give Canada formal authority over the Constitution in 1982? Why bother? And is it real authority over the Constitution? Am I wrong that an amendment can only be undertaken by a 'proclamation to amend' issued by the Gov Gen who works for the Queen? In other words, if the Queen/Gov Gen refuse to issue a proclamation, no amendment can take place. Am I wrong? Under procedures to amend the Con, it says, "38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and [...]" "may be made by proclamation issued by the GG" implies that no amendment can be made without this proclamation. You'll say the Queen or GG always issues a proclamation if requested by the gov't. But similar to RA, the Con gives the monarchy the legal power to refuse to issue a proclamation. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 02:08 PM | #729 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Follow the line of reasoning - the Queen was receiving contradictory advice from two of her advisors. One was giving advice about giving an honour to a British citizen, the other was giving advice about not giving an honour to a Canadian citizen. The Canadian PM cannot advise the Queen of the United Kingdom about an honour for a British citizen is what the judgement in Black says. The court was silent about the right of the PM of Canada to advise the Queen of Canada about an honour for a Canadian. The Queen never exercised independence from the advice of her Counsellors - in the end, events meant she didn't have to decide - Black renounced his Canadian citizenship, meaning that Jean Chretien's advice was not needed and HMTQ didn't need to make a decision as to which of her councillors would prevail (my $ would have been on Chretien - the man had a mean handshake.
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 02:11 PM | #730 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 02:17 PM | #731 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
|
Meanwhile, the hypothetical Oz/Canuck War of 2018 continues.
An Australian invasion force consisting of three backpackers intent on a skiing holiday have descended on Banff, threatening the local bar managers with working for money to support their sporting sojourn on the slopes. The counter-strike by a Canadian platoon of scuba-divers has landed in Cairns in northern Queensland, and has insinuated itself into a group of happy tourists diving on some of the last remaining unaffected parts of the Great Barrier Reef. Both groups have caused quite a stir among the local females, being young and devilishly handsome. The Queen has been keeping a watchful eye on all this from her secret lair beneath Buck House. But she is STILL not stating which of the two countries she is siding during these heightening tensions, because she secretly runs them both and they are both equally favoured in her sight and she has controlling shares in the ski resorts and dive boat companies. Any moment now the dam will burst. Will the Queen finally pick one side to lead and abandon the other? Or will she play both of them off against each other for profit. Stay tuned! |
__________________
...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 |
|
18th December 2018, 02:21 PM | #732 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
If it ceased to be an Act of British Parliament in 1982, then previous to that it was under British authority, was it not?
I think we already covered that Parliamentary Supremacy didn't apply to Canada because for one thing, the Queen is head of all three branches of gov't. PS says the legislature has the supreme power over other government institutions. As head of the legislature, the Queen still has supreme power. Our legislature is headed by the Queen. I'm guessing it has to be that way to be in compliance with Article 9. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 05:22 PM | #733 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
What do you suppose would happen today if RA was refused?
Would Justin send Liz to the guillotine? Would she be deposed or forced to abdicate for breaking an unwritten, non judiciable 'rule'? How would that work when the judiciable law states she has every right to refuse RA? |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 05:33 PM | #734 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
I thought you had already accepted that Canadian Legislation no longer goes anywhere near HRH for signing, and she does not sign or approve anything personally. So why ask such a stupid question? And since your argument is that she has supreme power, to be consistent with that argument, only she could arrest and try herself. This is getting very Monty Python. Norm |
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 05:46 PM | #735 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
The Queen cannot be arrested or compelled to testify in any court.
ETA: Other members of the family can be arrested, but as head of the family, the Queen personally has to be responsible, even if she personally was opposed to refusing RA. She carries out the decisions made by the family, The Crown, or whatever you want to call the organization behind her. And...I was asking Border what he thought would happen, since he posted some historical examples. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 05:53 PM | #736 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
18th December 2018, 05:53 PM | #737 |
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!" |
|
18th December 2018, 06:02 PM | #738 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
Then why did you ask a stupid pointless question? You could actually address what other posters say instead of going off in pointless tangents all the time. But of course that would require knowledge other than continually and only citing two points of the Constitution as your entire argument. Since you cannot offer anything other than "but...but...but... the constitution" it is difficult to find any point in your monotonous "Wash, rinse, repeat" posts. My washing machine does that better than you. Norm |
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 06:06 PM | #739 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
I've been following the thread for some time now, and for the life of me I cannot see what point Itchy Boy is trying to make.
Itchy Boy: But the Constitution says the Queen has the power! Everyone Else: Yes, it does. IB: But what if she uses it? EE: She won't. No monarch ever has. That's not the way it works. IB: But she could! EE: Technically, yes. IB: But... what if she does? EE: It would be unthinkable for her to do so. She never would and never will. IB: But... what if she does? |
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
18th December 2018, 06:16 PM | #740 |
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 06:19 PM | #741 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
I was interested early in the piece whether this would grow into a standard CT. Its easy enough to do this sort if thing if you know how to do it properly. In fact it can be done if you have enough brains to jump out of the way of a moving train. 1. Establish a harmless fact. (The Constitution says )"A" 2. Establish a trivial fact (People with power use power) 3. Show that the more money a person has, the more power he/she is likely to wield (easy enough to do and again a trivial fact) 4. Find examples where people who have a lot of money, therefore a lot of power get together. (The Bilderbergs as an example. I use this one because the OP tried to go there) 5. Dig up a few factoids tying any, some, or all of the above to decisions made by people in power. (You can start making up stuff at this stage or link of any number of frootloop conspiracy sites) 6. Ignore responsive answers, and repeat, adding irrelevant anecdotes to move the discussion into a blind alley. Unfortunately Itchy Boy has fallen at the first hurdle, is still there, and can't even go around it, much less jump it. He is also trying point six without much success. Norm |
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 06:24 PM | #742 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
|
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 06:26 PM | #743 |
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 06:39 PM | #744 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
We've been through this, but I guess you missed it so I'll repeat it for you.
Miram-Webster abdicate: - to renounce a throne, high office, dignity or function - to relinquish (something, such as sovereign power) formally renounce: - to give up, refuse, or resign, usually by formal declaration relinquish: - to withdraw or retreat from : leave behind - give up Words have meaning. There's a reason they use the word 'abdicate'. They may have convinced Ed it was his best choice, but it was still his choice. That's why they never use words like 'dethroned', 'deposed', 'fired' or anything that means he had no choice. 'Forced' to abdicate - the word 'forced' is there to give the impression he had no choice. He had a choice, and he decided his personal happiness was more important to him than being King. Had he not decided to abdicate, he would have remained King, but his life would be hell. ETA: The term 'forced to abdicate' was crafted to obscure the real power, just as the Conventions were crafted to obscure the real power. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 06:43 PM | #745 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Here's the rub - while the Queen is considered to be part of the Legislature she cannot exercise any more authority there than she could if she was in the British Parliament. The Queen by convention doesn't vote or propose legislation in the British Parliament - her role is to ceremonially open Parliament, read a speech and that's it.
As part of the executive branch the role of the monarch is to assent to legislation on the advice of their Privy Council, and be the source of authority to enforce the law/government policy. Note that tradition and convention are that the monarch does not exercise authority, merely that they provide the authority for others to act in their name. And the Queen does not hear cases as part of the judicial branch - justice is done in her name, not by her. Again this is convention, but this convention again goes back to the Restoration and is about as likely to be broken you are to appreciate the role that custom and tradition play in how words on paper are interpreted and put into effect. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 06:46 PM | #746 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
|
ETA. Bollocks.
ETA again. Responding to second post above. Obviously. |
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
18th December 2018, 06:46 PM | #747 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 06:48 PM | #748 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
I didn't miss it. But then you don't follow your own thread enough to know who says what. Your part in this part of the discussion was just further evidence that the only reason you search for the truth is to try and have it arrested and to replaced with your fiction. Norm |
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 06:48 PM | #749 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
It's a bit hard for anyone to say that anything that happened to Charles I was done not at the direction of Parliament (which I should think rather proves the point). The really interesting thing in this period though is what happens when Charles II returns to England. He agrees to a number of "reforms" forced on him by Parliament. Thus starts a long tradition of British monarchs being limited by Parliament.
|
18th December 2018, 06:58 PM | #750 |
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 07:13 PM | #751 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
So your answer is 'no' ?
"He agrees to a number of "reforms" forced on him". Isn't that an oxymoron? If you're forced to do something, by definition you are not agreeing. If he 'agreed' then it was his choice. If he did not agree, like Ed, his life could be made hell. But bottom line, it was his choice to give in to demands. |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 07:13 PM | #752 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Why do you think that HMTQ can't be arrested?
The Queen has already delegated the power to enforce the laws to the executive. If the executive determines that she has commuted an offence then the executive already has the authority to effect the arrest. The judicial branch already has the delegated authority to try persons brought before them. The Crown exercises its authority in the best interests of Canadians. It is in the best interests of Canadians that the criminal law is followed by all persons in our territorial jurisdiction, including the head of state. The historical precedent is Charles I. After his defeat by Parliament he was captured and placed under arrest. He was detained for years, then tried, convicted because he would not accept the authority of the court to try him and refused to present a defence. Then he was executed. Depending on the offence, if HMTQ was Convicted she would be subject to the penalty set out in the Criminal Code of Canada - essentially, this would mean a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 07:13 PM | #753 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
I don't intend to go through the entire thread, so I will just run with my actual question in Post #734, which you did not answer, and had to repeat in Post #738 because while you actually responded to the first, you totally ignored the point of the post and went off onto one of your usual tangents to avoid an actual answer. I assume though, that you consider replying to a post the same as responding to a post, and you consider that sufficient. Point seven in CT Beginners Class 101. Norm |
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 07:20 PM | #754 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
It is who HAS the authority that counts. Why is it so hard to understand that the Conventions are not enforceable? That they obscure the REAL SOURCE of Authority?
Yes, I know the Queen doesn't hear cases. That's not the point. But she is the highest authority in the land. That's an indisputable fact. Whether or not the power is used, is certainly disputable. Would you be kind enough to answer my previous question about what you think would happen if today, the Queen refused RA on a bill? |
__________________
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 07:26 PM | #755 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,721
|
|
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain |
|
18th December 2018, 07:26 PM | #756 |
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 07:27 PM | #757 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 07:31 PM | #758 |
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 |
|
18th December 2018, 07:33 PM | #759 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
I've never seen the Moon fall from the sky and crash to earth either. Does that mean that it has never happened?
The absence of observation of an event does not prove that it hasn't happened. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something has not happened. All you can do is demonstrate that it has. If it has happened, there would be some observable evidence that it has happened. You can't demonstrate that. You haven't, and you can't. There is no evidence. All you have is "what if". That leaves only two options: one where she has exercised that power, in secret, such that nobody knows about it except for those who actively covered it up, or one where she never has. Both options are indistinguishable from each other for all practical purposes, unless you can somehow get a cover-upper to fess. So the option that proposes the fewest unjustified assumptions is more likely to be true. Furthermore, even if she has, so what? Can you demonstrate that any harm has been caused by such an action? Can you demonstrate that the state of reality is in any way different from the way it would be if she had not done so? You can't do that either. You can ask "what if?" all you like, and it may be a good basis for a thriller novel if you've got the skills, but don't expect anyone else to take the question seriously. |
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
18th December 2018, 07:36 PM | #760 |
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|