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 10th December 2018, 12:16 PM   #361
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,515
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
See post 354.
You're replacing one hypothetical with another and offering no reason to accept yours.

The FACT of the matter is that the queen has never used this power the way you describe, and that she is unlikely to do so because there are legal paths that Canada can take to boot her out completely, becoming a Republic under both major definitions of the word.

You have no rebuttals for that.

Quote:
You're talking about little laws that are never used.

You think the supreme law of the land is irrelevant?
You think there's a difference between a Constitutional Law that is unused and a minor, local law that is unused? I don't see one.

Quote:
What does your common sense tell you?
That common sense is pretty damned useless where facts are concerned.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 10th December 2018, 12:17 PM   #362
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,515
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
No, your conclusion is literally the opposite of what it should be: she CANNOT use that power. Ergo she doesn't have it. It's just words on paper at this point. It has no real force of law.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 10th December 2018, 12:43 PM   #363
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, your conclusion is literally the opposite of what it should be: she CANNOT use that power. Ergo she doesn't have it. It's just words on paper at this point. It has no real force of law.
More to the point, why would she?

It is easy to speculate that major corporations would seek to influence governments. There is a profit to be had. However, the landed gentry classes have no need to seek additional profits and regard the pursuit with disdain. They are "old money" classes who have no need to increase their wealth like the "vulgar" entrepreneurial seek to.
__________________
"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 10th December 2018, 04:02 PM   #364
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
That you need support for this assumption, and without it you have nothing.
OK, but I still want to know your feelings on people with tremendous power. Do they use it? 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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 04:03 PM   #365
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
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?
Does the supreme law of the land (Constitution) fall under common law?
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 04:16 PM   #366
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
This is for all of you who think the Queen would lose her power if she did something disagreeable.
You people who think the Con is just paper and meaningless, ignore this post just as you ignore the legality of the supreme law of the land.

If you think the Queen could lose her power then whether you realize or not, whether you like it or not, you have tacitly acknowledged that, the queen HAS power, exactly as it says in the Constitution. So you agree with the original post which claims the Queen has power.

Now, how could she lose that power? It has to be by Constitutional amendment, does it not? The proclamation for amendments must originate with the Queen. But the Queen can refuse to issue a proclamation. Nowhere does it say that under any circumstances, may the PM or anyone else issue a proclamation to amend the Constitution.

If the Queen does not make the proclamation, no amendment can be made.

So by what mechanism do you propose her powers could be stripped?
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 04:18 PM   #367
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
What makes you think your fairy-land questions deserve any answers?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí 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 10th December 2018, 04:32 PM   #368
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,053
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, but I still want to know your feelings on people with tremendous power. Do they use it? What does your common sense tell you?
My common sense tells me that your actual argument is something like this:

1) The Queen has tremendous power <= you haven't actually established this

2) Therefore, the Queen is using her tremendous power <= depends on begging the question of (2)

3) However, there's no evidence of the Queen using tremendous power.

4) Therefore, the Queen is using her tremendous power in secret, where we can't see it. <= depends on begging the questions of (1) and (2).
Common sense also tells me that the most reasonable explanation for why there's no evidence of a thing is that the thing itself doesn't exist. Certainly many people in this thread have gone to great lengths to explain to you that while the Queen has some authority on paper, in practice that authority is unusable - the tremendous power you refer to doesn't actually exist.

Look at it this way: Whoever can destroy a thing, controls that thing. In this case, Canadians can erase the Queen's on-paper power simply by choosing to ignore her commands. So much for her supposedly "tremendous" power.

You're basically forced to claim - as you have done now - that there is a secret power being used, for which we have no sign or signal or evidence.

Not only that, but even if we accepted for the sake of argument that the Queen has tremendous power that she wields in secret, it wouldn't be the empty powers granted by the Canadian constitution. It would be whatever powers her faction has brokered in secret with the other secret power brokers. For all we know, the Windsors lost Canada to the Rockefellers in a game of cards a hundred years ago.

If your thesis is actually that the Queen wields tremendous power in secret, then Canada's constitution is a red herring and a waste of your time. You should be working on your evidence of a secret cabal that wields tremendous power, regardless of what's written publicly on paper.

But really, if you're claiming that the Queen is part of a secret cabal of power brokers, it helps if you first show that such a cabal exists. It's a lot easier to show that Canada exists, but you should not take the easy path. If you want credit for your ideas, you'll need to do the work, no matter how hard it is.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 05:13 PM   #369
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
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.
Beltz, get it straight. I never say anything I know to be false.

I didn't say nobody was addressing my points. I keep saying nobody has produced anything of legal standing that contradicts the Constitution or that limits the Queen's power. I'm saying their 'evidence' doesn't stand up.

But why am I explaining this to someone who thinks the Con is just a meaningless and toothless paper? Tell that to the Queen, and all the Constitutional lawyers.
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 05:21 PM   #370
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you think the Queen could lose her power then whether you realize or not, whether you like it or not, you have tacitly acknowledged that, the queen HAS power, exactly as it says in the Constitution. So you agree with the original post which claims the Queen has power.

Now, how could she lose that power? It has to be by Constitutional amendment, does it not? The proclamation for amendments must originate with the Queen. But the Queen can refuse to issue a proclamation. Nowhere does it say that under any circumstances, may the PM or anyone else issue a proclamation to amend the Constitution.

If the Queen does not make the proclamation, no amendment can be made.

So by what mechanism do you propose her powers could be stripped?

So, according to you, the Constitutional Amendment Referendum for Australia to become a Republic in 1999 and supported by 5.3 Million voters could not have happened. It must have been a fairy tale, or the Queen had no power to stop it.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 10th December 2018 at 05:32 PM.
fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 05:30 PM   #371
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I didn't say nobody was addressing my points. I keep saying nobody has produced anything of legal standing that contradicts the Constitution or that limits the Queen's power. I'm saying their 'evidence' doesn't stand up.

Actually everybody has been responding with what reality is, and that the wording of the Constitution of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc, elicits a "so what".



Unless you can do more than keep saying but...but...but the Constitution this discussion will remain circular as without evidence showing anything other than the wording of the Constitution, the response will continue to be - "so what".



You need to actually go somewhere in your argument which is utterly pointless as far as it has gone.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 05:32 PM   #372
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So, according to you, the Constitutional Amendment for Australia to become a Republic in 1999 and supported by 5.3 Million voters could not have happened. It must have been a fairy tale, or the Queen had no power to stop it.


Norm
No doubt the Queen was pulling secret strings with the population of Australia to get them to vote the right way.
Perhaps she has secret mind powers?
The Moog 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 10th December 2018, 05:37 PM   #373
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
No doubt the Queen was pulling secret strings with the population of Australia to get them to vote the right way.
Perhaps she has secret mind powers?

I bet she is wishing right now that she had the secret mind powers to do the same thing with BREXIT.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 05:38 PM   #374
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,809
Charles is gonna be like "Bertie" King Edward VII:His mom (Victoria) was so long on the throne he only lasted a few years before he kicked the bucket.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 10th December 2018, 06:06 PM   #375
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So, according to you, the Constitutional Amendment Referendum for Australia to become a Republic in 1999 and supported by 5.3 Million voters could not have happened. It must have been a fairy tale, or the Queen had no power to stop it.


Norm
According to me...nothing. We're not talking about Australia. We're talking strictly about 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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:12 PM   #376
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,954
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, am I to take from that that your common sense tells you that extremely powerful people typically do not use their power? Or do you think the Queen is the exception to the rule?
Where do you get the idea that she is extremely powerful? Where has she used these powers you say she has? Why not assume that she is astute enough to know that she has authority but no real 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
Old 10th December 2018, 06:18 PM   #377
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
According to me...nothing. We're not talking about Australia. We're talking strictly about Canada.
Australia and Canada share probably better than 90% of the same constitutional arrangements. And much the same with most other Commonwealth countries including the UK. We have far more similarities than we have a few paltry differences. Particularly when it comes to the Queen being Head of State, we have exactly the same setup as Canada including almost the same constitutional wording.

And yet somehow the Queen has these Darth Vader-like powers that she silently but powerfully wields over us and our kangaroos and wombats. Just like she does over you and your moose and beaver. These concerns take up a lot of her day, I expect. Don't you think she would be far more concerned with what is happening with Brexit than all that? Because she isn't doing any force chokes on the silly Brit politicians who are in the process of carelessly collapsing her own country's economy if not whole way of life. Don't you think it's time she stopped worrying about the state of our affairs on the other side of the world and attended to her own back yard? Because, according to you, she and the Bilderbergs has these immense powers on tap, so she could quite conceivably use them to stop the rot! So why hasn't she?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí 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 10th December 2018, 06:20 PM   #378
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My common sense tells me that your actual argument is something like this:

1) The Queen has tremendous power <= you haven't actually established this

2) Therefore, the Queen is using her tremendous power <= depends on begging the question of (2)

3) However, there's no evidence of the Queen using tremendous power.

4) Therefore, the Queen is using her tremendous power in secret, where we can't see it. <= depends on begging the questions of (1) and (2).
Common sense also tells me that the most reasonable explanation for why there's no evidence of a thing is that the thing itself doesn't exist. Certainly many people in this thread have gone to great lengths to explain to you that while the Queen has some authority on paper, in practice that authority is unusable - the tremendous power you refer to doesn't actually exist.

Look at it this way: Whoever can destroy a thing, controls that thing. In this case, Canadians can erase the Queen's on-paper power simply by choosing to ignore her commands. So much for her supposedly "tremendous" power.

You're basically forced to claim - as you have done now - that there is a secret power being used, for which we have no sign or signal or evidence.

Not only that, but even if we accepted for the sake of argument that the Queen has tremendous power that she wields in secret, it wouldn't be the empty powers granted by the Canadian constitution. It would be whatever powers her faction has brokered in secret with the other secret power brokers. For all we know, the Windsors lost Canada to the Rockefellers in a game of cards a hundred years ago.

If your thesis is actually that the Queen wields tremendous power in secret, then Canada's constitution is a red herring and a waste of your time. You should be working on your evidence of a secret cabal that wields tremendous power, regardless of what's written publicly on paper.

But really, if you're claiming that the Queen is part of a secret cabal of power brokers, it helps if you first show that such a cabal exists. It's a lot easier to show that Canada exists, but you should not take the easy path. If you want credit for your ideas, you'll need to do the work, no matter how hard it is.
Don't conflate arguments here. My claim is that the Queen has power over our elected officials. Nothing else. I offered some speculation about using her power but I'm not making any claim. That's a matter of opinion. That she has power is a matter of fact.

I'm learning that speculation around here tends to be taken as a claim, so I'll try to refrain from speculating about anything.

Back to the facts.
How would you parse these 2 sentences?

"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."


Can you explain, why they're meaningless or not enforceable? Has anyone ever challenged these Articles in the supreme law of the land? Have they ever been tested in court? Exactly how have they become meaningless. Do you think the Queen would agree with 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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:23 PM   #379
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Australia and Canada share probably better than 90% of the same constitutional arrangements. And much the same with most other Commonwealth countries including the UK. We have far more similarities than we have a few paltry differences. Particularly when it comes to the Queen being Head of State, we have exactly the same setup as Canada including almost the same constitutional wording.

And yet somehow the Queen has these Darth Vader-like powers that she silently but powerfully wields over us and our kangaroos and wombats. Just like she does over you and your moose and beaver. These concerns take up a lot of her day, I expect. Don't you think she would be far more concerned with what is happening with Brexit than all that? Because she isn't doing any force chokes on the silly Brit politicians who are in the process of carelessly collapsing her own country's economy if not whole way of life. Don't you think it's time she stopped worrying about the state of our affairs on the other side of the world and attended to her own back yard? Because, according to you, she and the Bilderbergs has these immense powers on tap, so she could quite conceivably use them to stop the rot! So why hasn't she?
Norman, I'm not going to debate a subject I know nothing about regardless of how similar their arrangements might be.
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:32 PM   #380
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Norman, I'm not going to debate a subject I know nothing about regardless of how similar their arrangements might be.
But you are debating exactly that. You brought here a debate on the reserve powers of the Queen as specified in the Canadian constitution. That is exactly the same debate in the Australian and UK (and other country's) constitution. The Canadian constitution derives from the UK one. It never arrived out of thin air.

So now you are admitting you know nothing about your own "special subject". Well, duh!
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí 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 10th December 2018, 06:35 PM   #381
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,784
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Can you explain, why they're meaningless or not enforceable? Has anyone ever challenged these Articles in the supreme law of the land? Have they ever been tested in court? Exactly how have they become meaningless. Do you think the Queen would agree with you?

"Never tested in court" is not a characteristic of a meaningful law (unless the law in question is newly enacted, which is not the case for the articles you cite). Laws that are actually in effect get tested in court.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:47 PM   #382
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
C'mon Prestige. Why the coyness? Are you afraid to give me an honest answer?

What is your opinion? Do powerful people typically use their power or not? What does your common sense tell you?

ETA: Anybody - chime in. What is your opinion on powerful people and the use of their 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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 10th December 2018 at 06:54 PM.
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:55 PM   #383
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Don't conflate arguments here. My claim is that the Queen has power over our elected officials. Nothing else. I offered some speculation about using her power but I'm not making any claim. That's a matter of opinion. That she has power is a matter of fact.

I'm learning that speculation around here tends to be taken as a claim, so I'll try to refrain from speculating about anything.

Back to the facts.
How would you parse these 2 sentences?

"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."


Can you explain, why they're meaningless or not enforceable? Has anyone ever challenged these Articles in the supreme law of the land? Have they ever been tested in court? Exactly how have they become meaningless. Do you think the Queen would agree with you?

As I said earlier, another "but...but...but... the Constitution". It seems to be all you have.



I can state with certainty that nobody in this thread has denied that these words are as you say they are. I can also say with complete certainty that plenty of examples have been given to show that in practical day to day matters in the real world, the words are next to worthless.



But you cannot get past the first hurdle. And you do not even try to go past your only point. I also expect if you respond to this, or any other post, your reply will still be along the lines of "but...but...but... the Constitution".


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 06:56 PM   #384
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
C'mon Prestige. Why the coyness? Are you afraid to give me an honest answer?

What is your opinion? Do powerful people typically use their power or not? What does your common sense tell you?

ETA: Anybody - chime in. What is your opinion on powerful people and the use of their power?
Does the Queen have the power you think she has?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí 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 10th December 2018, 07:16 PM   #385
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
As I said earlier, another "but...but...but... the Constitution". It seems to be all you have.



I can state with certainty that nobody in this thread has denied that these words are as you say they are. I can also say with complete certainty that plenty of examples have been given to show that in practical day to day matters in the real world, the words are next to worthless.



But you cannot get past the first hurdle. And you do not even try to go past your only point. I also expect if you respond to this, or any other post, your reply will still be along the lines of "but...but...but... the Constitution".


Norm
Ask a Constitutional lawyer which words in the Con are 'next to worthless'.

ETA: What's your opinion on whether powerful people tend to use their power or not?
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 10th December 2018 at 07:18 PM.
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 07:28 PM   #386
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Ask a Constitutional lawyer which words in the Con are 'next to worthless'.

Show me a Court Case where the Queen has used her theoretical Powers in Canada which has been upheld. As you have said so eloquently on this thread, everything is irrelevant other than the Queen and Canada's Constitution.


Quote:
ETA: What's your opinion on whether powerful people tend to use their power or not?

Pertaining to Queen Elizabeth and Canada, and since any other reply would be off topic, she has not, to my knowledge, used her power at all in relation to anything Canadian (apart from visiting occasionally, probably without a Passport which she may not need anyway).


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 10th December 2018 at 07:31 PM.
fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 07:36 PM   #387
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Show me a Court Case where the Queen has used her theoretical Powers in Canada which has been upheld. As you have said so eloquently on this thread, everything is irrelevant other than the Queen and Canada's Constitution.

Pertaining to Queen Elizabeth and Canada, and since any other reply would be off topic, she has not, to my knowledge, used her power at all in relation to anything Canadian (apart from visiting occasionally, probably without a Passport which she may not need anyway).


Norm
I'm sure the mods and forum members won't mind you being off topic for a sentence or two.
So, please answer. In your opinion, in general, do powerful people tend to use their power or not?
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 07:43 PM   #388
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'm sure the mods and forum members won't mind you being off topic for a sentence or two.
So, please answer. In your opinion, in general, do powerful people tend to use their power or not?

Anybody with powers uses them. I did myself when I was umpiring Softball, made an error, and used my power to ignore my incorrect decision and let it stand. I was the powerful fish in a small pond.



Is that the sort of thing you mean, or would you like to be more specific as to what you mean here. I cannot read your mind and decide what you mean by powerful people. You may accuse me, as is your fallback position on this thread when anybody posts something you don't like, of being too far off topic.


Learn to live within the thread parameters you have insisted on and don't change the subject when it suits you.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 08:32 PM   #389
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Anybody with powers uses them. I did myself when I was umpiring Softball, made an error, and used my power to ignore my incorrect decision and let it stand. I was the powerful fish in a small pond.



Is that the sort of thing you mean, or would you like to be more specific as to what you mean here. I cannot read your mind and decide what you mean by powerful people. You may accuse me, as is your fallback position on this thread when anybody posts something you don't like, of being too far off topic.


Learn to live within the thread parameters you have insisted on and don't change the subject when it suits you.



Norm
By powerful people, I meant like people who had a net worth of hundreds of millions or more. Or people who control various industries, countries, multinational companies. You know, powerful people.

Anyway, thanks for your straightforward answer.
"Anybody with powers uses them."

So we're in agreement on that point.
Your common sense tells you the same thing my common sense tells me.
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 10th December 2018 at 08:36 PM. Reason: spelling
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 08:43 PM   #390
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Anyway, thanks for your straight forward answer. "Anybody with powers uses them."

So we're in agreement on that point.
Your common sense tells you the same thing my common sense tells me.

Yes, and...


Is that it? Anybody with powers does use them I doubt that anybody would disagree. Just as nobody disagrees that the Canadian constitution contains the words you cited. The world would be unworkable otherwise. What would be the point of Police without powers? Or Parliaments, Or elections (people power)? Or Company Boards (often rich people)?



Of course, you are not using the use of power as the abuse of power, the misuse of power, the illegal use of power, or the covert use of power are you?


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 09:01 PM   #391
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Yes, and...


Is that it? Anybody with powers does use them I doubt that anybody would disagree. Just as nobody disagrees that the Canadian constitution contains the words you cited. The world would be unworkable otherwise. What would be the point of Police without powers? Or Parliaments, Or elections (people power)? Or Company Boards (often rich people)?



Of course, you are not using the use of power as the abuse of power, the misuse of power, the illegal use of power, or the covert use of power are you?


Norm
Yes, that's it. Other's have avoided answering because they don't want to agree with me on anything, no matter what. I suspect you have now instilled some bravery into them, so they might answer as you did.

That's 'it' because I'm not debating the use of her power since there's no direct evidence of it. I said my common sense tells me people use their power. So I can believe she uses her power without making a claim that she does. A claim requires evidence. Since there's none, common sense is all that's left with which to form an opinion about whether The Crown uses its power.

So, to get back to the real topic of whether the Queen actually possess top power in Canada, have a look at Post 366 on page 10.
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 09:07 PM   #392
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
I did and already responded to it. Your memory must be failing. It's just your usual "but... but...but... the Constitution, and Canada could do exactly what Australia did, and the Queen would not stop it.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 09:25 PM   #393
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I did and already responded to it. Your memory must be failing. It's just your usual "but... but...but... the Constitution, and Canada could do exactly what Australia did, and the Queen would not stop it.


Norm
I asked some specific questions. You didn't answer one of them.

You just responded with some irrelevant Australian example.

ETA: Of course if you're one who believes she possesses no power, then you needn't answer.
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 10th December 2018 at 09:37 PM.
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 09:39 PM   #394
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I asked some specific questions. You didn't answer one of them.

You just responded with some irrelevant Australian example.

Which applies in Canada if wanted. Nothing would unite Canadians more than an attempt by Her Royal Highness to interfere in their political life. Indeed her own oath of office prevents her doing so.


Don't you get that the Queen rules at the consent of the ruled and has no real power? Rulers by right of birth in the past have discovered that when they try something, they are out or in some cases dead. That is the practicality of the situation that you refuse to acknowledge despite dozens of examples dotting the many pages of this thread.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 10th December 2018 at 09:42 PM.
fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 09:44 PM   #395
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Which applies in Canada if wanted.


Don't you get that the Queen rules at the consent of the ruled and has no real power? Rulers by right of birth in the past have discovered that when they try something, they are out or in some cases dead. That is the practicality of the situation that you refuse to acknowledge despite dozens of examples dotting the many pages of this thread.



Norm
Nope, he isn't interested in anything but the wording of the Canadian constitution. He has no idea what it really means or how it got there. He's done zero research so far and does not intend to do any now or in future. It' an exercise solely in "LOOK AT THESE WORDS THEY ARE ENABLING THE BILDERBERGS THE QUEEN IS DARTH VADER AND A MEMBER OF THE STAR CHAMBER ERMAGERD THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING WRONG IN MY LIFE GOTTA GET MA GUNZZZ!"

Or something like that. Committed to deliberate ignorance.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí 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 10th December 2018, 09:57 PM   #396
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Nope, he isn't interested in anything but the wording of the Canadian constitution.

Yes, it is all he has, so that is as far as he can go, as his speculation about the Bilderbergs and the covert use of POWER died out of town, and he can't go there. He has no evidence of any examples where the Queen has intervened in Canadian life (well, there are always her visits and taking a bunch of flowers from a child, and she is on some of their stamps), but pretty much up a Blind Alley now.


Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 10th December 2018, 10:59 PM   #397
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Which applies in Canada if wanted. Nothing would unite Canadians more than an attempt by Her Royal Highness to interfere in their political life. Indeed her own oath of office prevents her doing so.


Don't you get that the Queen rules at the consent of the ruled and has no real power? Rulers by right of birth in the past have discovered that when they try something, they are out or in some cases dead. That is the practicality of the situation that you refuse to acknowledge despite dozens of examples dotting the many pages of this thread.

Norm
I know we're told the Queen rules at the 'consent of the ruled'. But what does "at the consent of" really mean? It simply means the people are OK with it. It doesn't say anything about power. The words 'rules' and 'ruled' do.

We're talking modern times where monarchs are in little danger of assassination. We in western society have, for the most part, eliminated the possibility of an armed insurrection.

Our society is founded and governed by laws. Laws are words. Those words have meaning. The Con is the supreme law and clearly states that authority of and over Canada remains with the Queen. In addition, the Sovereign has rights and privileges than no other human in the Commonwealth has. In my book, that's power.

All the counter arguments here have consisted of stories, Convention, precedent etc. None of which has any teeth. The teeth are all in the Constitution. All the precedent, custom and Convention that you read about and has been offered here as counter argument, is just cover for this fact.

When you parse all that stuff, you find weasel words. They'll tell you the Queen has no real political power. That's true. But only because the word 'political' is in there. She doesn't have the power to meddle in elections or the day to day stuff. Her power is above that level, as is stated in the Constitution.

"The Queen has no real political power" is not the same as "The Queen has no real power". The first is true, the second would be a lie.
And they never openly lie like that. Instead they stick in these weasel words to make the statement true. But it's not the whole truth.

That's one small example of how they make people believe the Queen is just a figurehead.
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:09 PM   #398
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,530
Itchy Boy, I suggest you look up “not even wrong” which is what you have been throughout this thread.

Don’t bother, here’s a link for you:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
__________________
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 10th December 2018, 11:15 PM   #399
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
"The Queen has no real political power" is not the same as "The Queen has no real power". The first is true, the second would be a lie.


And they never openly lie like that. Instead they stick in these weasel words to make the statement true. But it's not the whole truth.

That's one small example of how they make people believe the Queen is just a figurehead.

OK.



1. What other powers does the Queen have and use on a regular basis.


2. Twice you have said "they" do this and that. Who are these "they" of which you speak, and how do "they"operate on a day to day basis and confuse people.


If it is members of this forum you are speaking about, well, I accepted limitations to the Queens "rule" and "power" decades before this thread started, and these particular they have nothing to do with it. In fact every member who has posted on this thread, independent of each other, have reached the same conclusions and probably also many years ago.




Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 11th December 2018, 12:13 AM   #400
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
OK.



1. What other powers does the Queen have and use on a regular basis.


2. Twice you have said "they" do this and that. Who are these "they" of which you speak, and how do "they"operate on a day to day basis and confuse people.


If it is members of this forum you are speaking about, well, I accepted limitations to the Queens "rule" and "power" decades before this thread started, and these particular they have nothing to do with it. In fact every member who has posted on this thread, independent of each other, have reached the same conclusions and probably also many years ago.




Norm
1. All the Queen's powers are written in the Constitution.
Article 9 says she's the boss.
Article 15 says she's the head of the Armed Forces (in case anybody gets any ideas). Then there are other powers such as Royal Assent.

I've stated over and over, I can't speak about their use as there is no evidence. My OPINION, based on my read of human nature is that powerful people use their power and the Queen, IN MY OPINION, is no exception.

If, how, when or why she uses it - the details - I don't know.
That's all I have to say about her use of power.

2. 'They 1' refers to the monarchy's public relations people. ETA: who dreamed up the figurehead scenario
'They 2' refers to all the pundits, constitutional scholars, etc who believe in the figurehead scenario and write about it. Like those links Norman A. posted.

Exactly how and when the figurehead paradigm came about, I don't know. But it's mainly the Conventions that propagate it.

Maybe I'll do a post to explain how I see the relationship between the written and unwritten parts of the Constitution and how those two parts work together to create the illusion of a figurehead.
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 11th December 2018 at 12:35 AM.
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 06:18 PM.
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.