|
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. |
7th December 2018, 06:00 PM | #161 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,114
|
|
7th December 2018, 06:04 PM | #162 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Wait, if she did dent assent, why does the prime minister have to resign? Please be specific.
|
7th December 2018, 06:06 PM | #163 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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. |
7th December 2018, 06:07 PM | #164 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
7th December 2018, 06:07 PM | #165 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,114
|
The erstwhile official opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois
|
7th December 2018, 06:11 PM | #166 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Does this conversation sound less ridiculous if we were discussing the force of law of Medvedev bas president?
|
7th December 2018, 06:44 PM | #167 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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." |
7th December 2018, 06:56 PM | #168 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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. |
7th December 2018, 08:19 PM | #169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,811
|
|
__________________
...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 |
|
7th December 2018, 08:21 PM | #170 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
7th December 2018, 08:24 PM | #171 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
7th December 2018, 08:27 PM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
7th December 2018, 08:48 PM | #173 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
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!" |
|
7th December 2018, 08:56 PM | #174 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Canada's complete disregard for their own Constitution is taking off my list of acceptable countries to travel to.
|
7th December 2018, 08:59 PM | #175 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th December 2018, 09:14 PM | #176 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,022
|
|
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips |
|
7th December 2018, 09:34 PM | #177 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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 |
7th December 2018, 09:35 PM | #178 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
7th December 2018, 09:43 PM | #179 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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. |
7th December 2018, 09:44 PM | #180 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
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:
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th December 2018, 09:45 PM | #181 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
7th December 2018, 09:46 PM | #182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,811
|
|
__________________
...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 |
|
7th December 2018, 09:49 PM | #183 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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? |
7th December 2018, 09:50 PM | #184 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,811
|
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 |
|
7th December 2018, 09:52 PM | #185 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th December 2018, 09:54 PM | #186 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,811
|
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 |
|
7th December 2018, 09:56 PM | #187 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
7th December 2018, 09:59 PM | #188 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th December 2018, 10:03 PM | #189 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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. |
7th December 2018, 10:04 PM | #190 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
7th December 2018, 10:23 PM | #191 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
7th December 2018, 10:35 PM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
7th December 2018, 10:43 PM | #193 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
7th December 2018, 10:51 PM | #194 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
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 |
|
8th December 2018, 01:45 AM | #195 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
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. |
8th December 2018, 02:54 AM | #196 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
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 |
|
8th December 2018, 03:40 AM | #197 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
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 |
|
8th December 2018, 03:44 AM | #198 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,811
|
|
__________________
...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 |
|
8th December 2018, 04:31 AM | #199 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
8th December 2018, 04:37 AM | #200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|