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 11th December 2018, 01:08 AM   #401
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
So you have no idea what she does or does not do, but are willing to take a guess. And the Queens PR staff are so brilliant that they have tricked every British Constitutional scholar and every British historian on the Planet that the Queen who is in reality Xena Warrier Princess, is really just a mild mannered and timid little Gabrielle.


Oh, by the way:


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

Queen Victoria's time is when it really came to the fore, although it started much earlier. It's not exactly a State secret.



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, 02:20 AM   #402
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So you have no idea what she does or does not do, but are willing to take a guess. And the Queens PR staff are so brilliant that they have tricked every British Constitutional scholar and every British historian on the Planet that the Queen who is in reality Xena Warrier Princess, is really just a mild mannered and timid little Gabrielle.

Oh, by the way:
Queen Victoria's time is when it really came to the fore, although it started much earlier. It's not exactly a State secret.
Norm
I don't know the history of the figurehead paradigm because I never specifically researched it. But yes, they've had a very long time to develop it and make it part of the public consciousness.
So it's not so much that the PR staff are so brilliant as it is the fact that it goes back a long way and generations have come and gone believing it.

Because the use of her power (if she uses it) is totally invisible, it's just like it doesn't exist. That makes it extremely easy to maintain the idea that the Queen is just a figurehead.

I have a friend who's a member of the Monarch Society of Canada. He knows the Queen has the ultimate power. But he thinks the only time she would use it is if there was chaos in the gov't, and she could step in and restore order.

So, lots of people know she has the power. They just don't believe she uses it, so even they believe the figurehead paradigm.
__________________
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 02:21 AM. Reason: spelling
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 02:30 AM   #403
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Because the use of her power (if she uses it) is totally invisible, it's just like it doesn't exist.

Slowly but surely you are getting there.


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, 03:53 AM   #404
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Beltz, get it straight. I never say anything I know to be false.
You do say a lot of things that ARE false, though.

Quote:
I keep saying nobody has produced anything of legal standing that contradicts the Constitution or that limits the Queen's power.
Why is it so hard for you to understand the response to this? There are plenty of laws, no matter their 'level', which are never enforced and would be challenged in court and demolished if they were were. The Constitution is no different.

Quote:
But why am I explaining this to someone who thinks the Con is just a meaningless and toothless paper?
See, this is a lie. You know that I didn't say this, and yet you say that I did. So your opening statement above was, also, a lie. That's two lies in one post. Maybe you want to clean up your act and debate honestly before others bother to take you seriously. You might also want to stay away from conspiracy theories if you want to be taken seriously.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 03:54 AM   #405
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Because the use of her power (if she uses it) is totally invisible, it's just like it doesn't exist.
Sort of like fairies. They exist too. But they and their effects are also so invisible it is just like they, too, don't exist. Think about it...

So according to your theory, the Queen has immense power along with other hidden entities, and they wield these powers to create huge disturbances in civilisations to their advantage. But they do this completely invisibly to all human observation. And these huge disturbances are completely undetectable as well. Nobody notices the anything at all, and we all just go along with notion of the kindly old dear who is pretending to be some dim and isolated figurehead.

Is that it? And you can't see any problems in logical yet? Perhaps you should look up "homeopathy". This idea of yours shares very similar characteristics.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 03:55 AM   #406
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
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.
If only that were true.

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?
No, you answer some questions now. Move from theory to practice. Show us a Court Case where the Queen has used her theoretical Powers in Canada which has been upheld.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 03:56 AM   #407
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Because the use of her power (if she uses it) is totally invisible, it's just like it doesn't exist.
Assuming you're not trolling, here, how do you know this to be true if it's totally invisible? In order for her to do this, the parliament of Canada would still need to enact her will through legal means.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 04:15 AM   #408
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,427
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Why is it so hard for you to understand the response to this? There are plenty of laws, no matter their 'level', which are never enforced and would be challenged in court and demolished if they were were. The Constitution is no different.
Way back earlier in this thread I gave our young protagonist a list of "silly" Canadian laws that are real and on the statutes today. These were examples of exactly this situation: laws that are the product of an imperfect law system.

Once upon a time, in provinces far, far away, these laws were promulgated because they were thought necessary. They meant something to someone, who was serious enough to spend time getting them enacted.

But nowadays they look VERY silly and would not be enforced if they were used in legal argument. The reasons will probably be that social or legal conventions have superseded these laws. So they no longer have any effect in a strictly absolutist sense. It is the intent of these laws that matters more.

A more serious example is the US Third Amendment. The text of this is specifically and only about billeting soldiers in private houses. However it has been used successfully as an argument for the right of privacy generally, even though that's NOT exactly how it is worded. The judicial interpretation is what matters, something that our young friend is having trouble with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_...interpretation
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 07:04 AM   #409
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
Now follow this line of argument.

People with power uses it.
The Queen has power to act against the advice of Her Privy Council.
Has She (or other reigning monarch) successfully exercised it?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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, 07:40 AM   #410
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,604
Political history lesson time.

The doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy arises from Charles Stuart and his argument that as a King anointed by God to rule, Parliament existed to exercise his will. Parliament said, "Wait a minute, there are limits to your power."

When Charles decided to go "No, there are no limits on my exercise of power," and gathered an army to enforce said opinion, Parliament did the same (the gathering of an army) and lo, the English Civil War happened.

Fast forwarding to the end, Charles lost the argument, and his life. His son James was reinstated as King after the "I'm not a King, but I'll exercise all the powers of one in the same way that got the last one killed" died and tried to leave his title and authority to his son was deposed and Charles II promised to not exercise his powers against the advice of Parliament. Charles went on to successfully rule.

His brother, James II and VII, decided that he'd rather follow the example of the first Charles and defy Parliament. He was then deposed and his daughter and her husband were installed in his place.

Since that time, it's been pretty clear in the United Kingdom who has the real power - Parliament. The monarch still has quite a bit of theoretical power, but the practical exercise of that power is minimal.

Canada uses the British model of government, including the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. This is part of the "unwritten constitution" inherited from the UK and I think a major strength of the Canadian system of government in that the means of exercising power by the government is flexible and readily adapted to changes in societal needs that a written constitution can be.

Essentially, should the reigning monarch attempt to exercise power contrary to the advice of the Canadian Parliament, then much like Charles I and James II, they will find themselves out of a position where they would be unable to exert any form of authority (even the moral authority that the current monarch is able to demonstrate due to a lifetime of service). Said monarch would not likely loose their head in the matter of Charles I, or be forced into exile and compelled to live on the charity of others such as James II or Edward VII (being ordinarily resident elsewhere), but they would no longer be able to assert that they are the Queen/King of Canada.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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, 07:43 AM   #411
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,113
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't know the history of the figurehead paradigm because I never specifically researched it.

So you admit to your own ignorance, have failed to attempt to relieve said ignorance, and yet, you still insist that you've somehow sussed out a hidden truth that has eluded the constitutional and legal scholars who have studied these issues.

Doesn't that strike as just the smallest bit arrogant?



Quote:
But yes, they've had a very long time to develop it and make it part of the public consciousness.
So it's not so much that the PR staff are so brilliant as it is the fact that it goes back a long way and generations have come and gone believing it.

Because the use of her power (if she uses it) is totally invisible, it's just like it doesn't exist. That makes it extremely easy to maintain the idea that the Queen is just a figurehead.

The use of her power is "totally invisible". "Generations have come and gone believing it". Put those two thoughts together.

As a child, a boy reads about Government in Canada. Being not quite so arrogant as you, he seeks out learned tomes that discuss the history of Government, the Monarchy, the Canadian constitution and how it has evolved over the years, and, being as we're not back in Victorian times, that boy learns that the Queen is a figurehead, the titular head of state, but who defers all the normal operations of government to the Prime Minister and other elected officials. He learns of previous monarchs who made deliberate stands against interfering in Parliamentary politics, because it is important that the Crown be seen to be neutral with regards to such political disputes. He learns of the abdication of Edward VIII when Parliament refused to allow him to marry as he wished. And so, as have generations before him, he comes to the conclusion that the Crown is just what it appears to be, a figurehead, a traditional remnant of past monarchies that has evolved over time into a more mature form of government.

Having learned of this long a noble history of the Government, and its evolution into a modern democratic state, he's inspired to study law, and run for office, so as to partake in this noble cause.

And then the day he's elected to office, he gets a call from the Queen. "Oi!", she says, "All that bollocks about me being a figurehead? Yeah, Sod That! Here's you marching orders, peasant!"


And this boy, now a man, elected (so he thought) to serve and represent the people of his riding, does what exactly? Blow the whistle? Tell the queen to blow it out her ass? Resign in disgust at how he's been misled?

Nope, he toes the line.

And so does every other elected official in the entire Commonwealth.

Hundreds of men and women in each Parliament. Dozens of governments, from all sorts of political parties from both the left and right wings. Through several different monarchs, at least two of whom never expected to ever even be the monarch. For over a hundred years now since Victoria apparently started playing this game.

And not one single person ever blew the whistle.

Common sense, indeed.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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, 08:04 AM   #412
Senex
Philosopher
 
Senex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: School for Rumpology, CT
Posts: 5,772
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Princess of Canada's kidnapping.
Senex 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, 09:28 AM   #413
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,723
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?
Fair enough. Let's start here: "That she has power is a matter of fact."

That the Queen has certain powers on paper is a matter of fact. That those powers are largely unusable, and are usable only at the pleasure of the Canadian people, is also a matter of fact.

If your claim is that the words on the paper exist, then yes, your claim is trivially true. But that's not your claim. Your claim is that the words on paper translate to real, practical power over Canada. Your claim is that the words on paper translate to a secret and ongoing practical exercise of power in command of Canada's affairs.

Your claim isn't about what the words are. Your claim is about what the words mean in terms of practical application. The dispute is not about whether you're right that the words exist, but about whether you're right that the words translate to real exercise of power - not just in principle, but in regular practice.

So.

Does the Queen have supreme authority over Canada on paper?

Yes, obviously.

Does this translate to practical power over Canada in principle?

No, for all the reasons given repeatedly in this thread.

Does the Queen openly exercise her constitutional power over Canada?

There's no evidence that she does.

Does the Queen secretly exercise her constitutional power over Canada?

There's no evidence of that, either.

The two sentences you quoted can acquire practical meaning in one of two ways: Either because it suits the Canadians to give them practical meaning, or because the Queen has the means and the will to enforce them.

We already know that the Queen lacks the means to enforce the Canadian constitution. We can reasonably infer that she also lacks the will. Fortunately it suits the Canadian people to give those sentences some practical meaning. But this state of affairs puts all the power squarely in the hands of the Canadians themselves, not the Queen.

At the end of the day, the only real power is the power of enforcement. You can put anything you want on paper. Kuwait is an independent nation on paper, but those lines on the map are meaningless without someone willing and able to enforce them when the time comes.

On paper, Crimea was part of Ukraine. In practice, it's part of Russia. Who had the power there? The Ukrainians with lines on a map and words on paper? Or the Russians with boots on the ground enforcing their will?

It's good that you're backing away from unsupported speculation. But we should still keep your thesis in mind: That the Queen exercises vast and secret power over Canada, as part of a hereditary cabal of power brokers who have divided the world between themselves.

Without speaking to the thesis itself, we can still say that you are making a mistake, by taking the language of the Canadian constitution as your starting point. The words exist. They mean whatever the Canadians wish them to mean. They cannot be enforced in any practical way. Extrapolating from the Canadian constitution to the Queen's practical exercise of secret power is a non sequitur.
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 11th December 2018, 09:38 AM   #414
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,434
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Political history lesson time.

The doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy arises from Charles Stuart and his argument that as a King anointed by God to rule, Parliament existed to exercise his will. Parliament said, "Wait a minute, there are limits to your power."

When Charles decided to go "No, there are no limits on my exercise of power," and gathered an army to enforce said opinion, Parliament did the same (the gathering of an army) and lo, the English Civil War happened.

Fast forwarding to the end, Charles lost the argument, and his life. His son James was reinstated as King after the "I'm not a King, but I'll exercise all the powers of one in the same way that got the last one killed" died and tried to leave his title and authority to his son was deposed and Charles II promised to not exercise his powers against the advice of Parliament. Charles went on to successfully rule.

His brother, James II and VII, decided that he'd rather follow the example of the first Charles and defy Parliament. He was then deposed and his daughter and her husband were installed in his place.

Since that time, it's been pretty clear in the United Kingdom who has the real power - Parliament. The monarch still has quite a bit of theoretical power, but the practical exercise of that power is minimal.

Canada uses the British model of government, including the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. This is part of the "unwritten constitution" inherited from the UK and I think a major strength of the Canadian system of government in that the means of exercising power by the government is flexible and readily adapted to changes in societal needs that a written constitution can be.

Essentially, should the reigning monarch attempt to exercise power contrary to the advice of the Canadian Parliament, then much like Charles I and James II, they will find themselves out of a position where they would be unable to exert any form of authority (even the moral authority that the current monarch is able to demonstrate due to a lifetime of service). Said monarch would not likely loose their head in the matter of Charles I, or be forced into exile and compelled to live on the charity of others such as James II or Edward VII (being ordinarily resident elsewhere), but they would no longer be able to assert that they are the Queen/King of Canada.
What a sensible post! Are you sure that you are posting in the right thread?

I might add that as I understand it, Victoria was the last active monarch in the British Empire. Since the beginning of the 20th century, monarchs have been content to have a largely ceremonial role and leave the business of government to parliament.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 09:58 AM   #415
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,369
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What a sensible post! Are you sure that you are posting in the right thread?

I might add that as I understand it, Victoria was the last active monarch in the British Empire. Since the beginning of the 20th century, monarchs have been content to have a largely ceremonial role and leave the business of government to parliament.
Little known fact, after WW2, Wilhemina of Netherlands tried to reform the political landscape because she felt the normal political parties had failed and were too weak. She wanted a far more technocratic government with a strong role for herself and her descendants. At the time she was considered the mother of the nation, the one who kept the army going in exile and who had the oath of loyalty of the same groups that Itchy Boy claims own loyalty to the queen of Canada.
And she was just basically ignored. Her ideas were politely received and then dismissed. Technically she had the power to push her ideas trough and she achieved exactly nothing.
Lukraak_Sisser 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, 10:01 AM   #416
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,723
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What a sensible post! Are you sure that you are posting in the right thread?

I might add that as I understand it, Victoria was the last active monarch in the British Empire. Since the beginning of the 20th century, monarchs have been content to have a largely ceremonial role and leave the business of government to parliament.
Well, IB's actual thesis seems to be that the monarchs continue to wield actual power in secret, and the parliaments of the world have to go along with it because the constitution makes them.
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 11th December 2018, 10:19 AM   #417
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,434
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, IB's actual thesis seems to be that the monarchs continue to wield actual power in secret, and the parliaments of the world have to go along with it because the constitution makes them.
Of course! Classic CT.

The boy has stopped responding to my posts so I guess he is looking for posts that he thinks are more rebuttable.
__________________
"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 11th December 2018, 11:40 AM   #418
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Belz, Norman, Border, Horatius, thePrestige, psion10, Lukraak and anybody else:

Here's a little thought experiment to see if Article 15 is meaningless or unenforceable. (I know this would never happen, but it's just to illustrate the point.)

Say the top Canadian military officer one day says, "Hey, Liz, that old Article 15 is meaningless because it's never been used, it's a Dead Letter Law. The gov't has appointed me to be the new Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces."

Now I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest the Queen would say something to the effect, "No, you can't do that."

What would happen next? It would have to go to court, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't the court have to follow what the Constitution says, which is that Command-in-Chief shall continue and be vested in the Queen?
Or would they say, "Ya, it's a Dead Letter Law. The soldier is the new Command-in-Chief." ?

Do you think the court would rule in favour of the soldier and the gov't, or in favour of the Queen?

It's a simple thought experiment. Try not to avoid giving a direct answer. Who wins the case?
__________________
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 11:42 AM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 11:57 AM   #419
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,052
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Belz, Norman, Border, Horatius, thePrestige, psion10, Lukraak and anybody else:

Here's a little thought experiment to see if Article 15 is meaningless or unenforceable. (I know this would never happen, but it's just to illustrate the point.)

Say the top Canadian military officer one day says, "Hey, Liz, that old Article 15 is meaningless because it's never been used, it's a Dead Letter Law. The gov't has appointed me to be the new Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces."

Now I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest the Queen would say something to the effect, "No, you can't do that."

What would happen next? It would have to go to court, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't the court have to follow what the Constitution says, which is that Command-in-Chief shall continue and be vested in the Queen?
Or would they say, "Ya, it's a Dead Letter Law. The soldier is the new Command-in-Chief." ?

Do you think the court would rule in favour of the soldier and the gov't, or in favour of the Queen?

It's a simple thought experiment. Try not to avoid giving a direct answer. Who wins the case?
Instead of editing for grammar you should have edited for logic.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 11th December 2018, 11:58 AM   #420
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,723
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Belz, Norman, Border, Horatius, thePrestige, psion10, Lukraak and anybody else:

Here's a little thought experiment to see if Article 15 is meaningless or unenforceable. (I know this would never happen, but it's just to illustrate the point.)

Say the top Canadian military officer one day says, "Hey, Liz, that old Article 15 is meaningless because it's never been used, it's a Dead Letter Law. The gov't has appointed me to be the new Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces."

Now I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest the Queen would say something to the effect, "No, you can't do that."

What would happen next? It would have to go to court, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't the court have to follow what the Constitution says, which is that Command-in-Chief shall continue and be vested in the Queen?
Or would they say, "Ya, it's a Dead Letter Law. The soldier is the new Command-in-Chief." ?

Do you think the court would rule in favour of the soldier and the gov't, or in favour of the Queen?

It's a simple thought experiment. Try not to avoid giving a direct answer. Who wins the case?
Direct answer: It depends.

There are too many factors, caveats, and unstated assumptions to give a simple answer to this question.

The scenario itself, as described, is also implausible to the point of absurdity. This makes a simple answer very difficult even if it were otherwise unencumbered.

But okay. Here's as simple as I can get. Please try to engage the actual complexities of your question, instead of trying to oversimplify it.

The court's ruling would probably depend on whether the Canadian government has actually appointed Canada's top military officer as CIC of the Canadian military, and the process by which this appointment was made.

But there are several absurdities in the scenario.

For example, it's implausible that the Canadian government would want to vest CIC authority in a miltiary officer. In general, governments vest CIC authority in the the senior civilian executive in their government. The Prime Minister or the President, usually.

It's also implausible that anyone would just go to the Queen and tell her it's a dead letter law. What's more plausible is that the Canadian parliament would formally sever that clause in the Canadian constitution. It's impossible to tell ahead of time whether the specifics of their action would be accepted by the court.

On the other hand, the Queen lacks the means to compel the Canadians to go to court in the first place. While they're ignoring the Queen, they could also ignore the court. Or change the court's role the same way they've changed the Queen's role.

So here's another direct answer for you: No, it would not have to go to court. It would only end up in court if the Canadian government wanted it to. Most likely, if they're changing the role of the Queen in Canada's affairs, they're also changing the court's authority to adjudicate the Queen's claims in Canada.

And here's another direct answer for you: Give up the red herring of the Canadian constitution, and make a direct case for your claim that the Queen wields secret power over Canada.
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 11th December 2018, 12:02 PM   #421
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
[quote=psion10 I might add that as I understand it, Victoria was the last active monarch in the British Empire. Since the beginning of the 20th century, monarchs have been content to have a largely ceremonial role and leave the business of government to parliament.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we all know that human nature is such that, immensely powerful people suddenly decide to just chill and let their power wane.
__________________
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 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, 12:07 PM   #422
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Direct answer: It depends.

There are too many factors, caveats, and unstated assumptions to give a simple answer to this question.

The scenario itself, as described, is also implausible to the point of absurdity. This makes a simple answer very difficult even if it were otherwise unencumbered.

But okay. Here's as simple as I can get. Please try to engage the actual complexities of your question, instead of trying to oversimplify it.

The court's ruling would probably depend on whether the Canadian government has actually appointed Canada's top military officer as CIC of the Canadian military, and the process by which this appointment was made.

But there are several absurdities in the scenario.

For example, it's implausible that the Canadian government would want to vest CIC authority in a miltiary officer. In general, governments vest CIC authority in the the senior civilian executive in their government. The Prime Minister or the President, usually.

It's also implausible that anyone would just go to the Queen and tell her it's a dead letter law. What's more plausible is that the Canadian parliament would formally sever that clause in the Canadian constitution. It's impossible to tell ahead of time whether the specifics of their action would be accepted by the court.

On the other hand, the Queen lacks the means to compel the Canadians to go to court in the first place. While they're ignoring the Queen, they could also ignore the court. Or change the court's role the same way they've changed the Queen's role.

So here's another direct answer for you: No, it would not have to go to court. It would only end up in court if the Canadian government wanted it to. Most likely, if they're changing the role of the Queen in Canada's affairs, they're also changing the court's authority to adjudicate the Queen's claims in Canada.

And here's another direct answer for you: Give up the red herring of the Canadian constitution, and make a direct case for your claim that the Queen wields secret power over Canada.
And how would they sever the clause? Show me where the Constitution says anybody other than the Queen can proclaim a constitutional amendment, or where an amendment doesn't require a proclamation.

ETA: If Article 15 is meaningless, then why would they need to amend? Just the fact that they need to amend the Constitution in itself proves the Article is in force.
__________________
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 12:16 PM.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 12:24 PM   #423
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Belz, Norman, Border, Horatius, thePrestige, psion10, Lukraak and anybody else:

Here's a little thought experiment to see if Article 15 is meaningless or unenforceable. (I know this would never happen, but it's just to illustrate the point.)

Say the top Canadian military officer one day says, "Hey, Liz, that old Article 15 is meaningless because it's never been used, it's a Dead Letter Law. The gov't has appointed me to be the new Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces."

Now I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest the Queen would say something to the effect, "No, you can't do that."

What would happen next? It would have to go to court, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't the court have to follow what the Constitution says, which is that Command-in-Chief shall continue and be vested in the Queen?
Or would they say, "Ya, it's a Dead Letter Law. The soldier is the new Command-in-Chief." ?

Do you think the court would rule in favour of the soldier and the gov't, or in favour of the Queen?

It's a simple thought experiment. Try not to avoid giving a direct answer. Who wins the case?
First, your scenario is implausible - other than in military dictatorships is the CIC of a military - ie the person with the legal authority to make decisions on the employment and disposition of the military - a military officer.

The only way that’s happening here is in the event of a military coup overthrowing the duly elected government a situation that would likely mean that no one is bringing anyone to court for a ruling on s.15of the Constitution ACT 1867. More plausibly the scenario would be reversed

HMTQ, "Justin, I’m no longer pleased with General Vance, he’s not moving fast enough on OPERATION HONOUR for my taste. I hear you appoint my grandson Captain Windsor as the new Chief of the Defense Staff. He will assume those duties tomorrow.”

Justin “your Majesty, as the Head of the Privy Council I strongly urge you to reconsider this. The Canadaian people will not stand for it.”

HMTQ - “just do it”

Justin - “It is with a heavy heart that I tell you that the Canadian people will not accept this and if you do not change your mi nd we will start the process to get a new head of state.”
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

Last edited by Border Reiver; 11th December 2018 at 02:04 PM. Reason: Formatting and a spelling error due to doing this on my phone
Border Reiver 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, 12:32 PM   #424
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Say the top Canadian military officer one day says, "Hey, Liz, that old Article 15 is meaningless because it's never been used, it's a Dead Letter Law. The gov't has appointed me to be the new Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces."

Now I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest the Queen would say something to the effect, "No, you can't do that."

What would happen next? It would have to go to court, wouldn't it?
Maybe. I wouldn't bet on that. Parliament in Ottawa could just tell her royal majesty that if she has a problem with that, they'll just change the constitution and stop putting her face on their money, and she'll fold. Why? Because there's literally nothing she can do about it.

But say you're right. Say she goes to court and Canada loses. She still doesn't command the armies except on paper.

Quote:
Wouldn't the court have to follow what the Constitution says, which is that Command-in-Chief shall continue and be vested in the Queen?
Or would they say, "Ya, it's a Dead Letter Law. The soldier is the new Command-in-Chief." ?
Depends how they interpret precedent. As argued before, Canada is a common law country.

Quote:
Try not to avoid giving a direct answer.
Please stop projecting. You've still failed to address the problem of theory vs actuality.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 12:35 PM   #425
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
And how would they sever the clause? Show me where the Constitution says anybody other than the Queen can proclaim a constitutional amendment, or where an amendment doesn't require a proclamation.
The Constitution exists at the pleasure of the people who wield legal power in Canada. It's been changed before and can be changed again regardless of what's written on it.

You put way too much weight on the written word and on theory and hypotheticals. Contrast that we our reliance on actual cases of royal exercise of power. A common law approach to the debate, if you will.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 12:35 PM   #426
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
thePrestige said:
"But we should still keep your thesis in mind: That the Queen exercises vast and secret power over Canada, as part of a hereditary cabal of power brokers who have divided the world between themselves. "

I made a simple claim, not a thesis. The claim was that the Queen POSSESSES power over and above elected Canadian officials. I backed the claim with wording from the Con, the supreme law of the land. None of the counter arguments supersede the Con. But you all seem to think the Con is just meaningless paper.

If it's meaningless, why does it need to be amended? Why do stringent conditions need to be met in order to amend it?
__________________
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 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, 12:37 PM   #427
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
First, your scenario is implausible - other than in military dictatorships is the CIC of a military - ie the person with the legal authority to make decisions on the employment and disposition of the military - a military officer.

The only way that’s happening here is in the event of a military coup overthrowing the duly elected government a situation that would likely mean that no one is bringing anyone to court for a ruling on s.15of the Constitution ACT 1867. More plausibly the scenario would be reversed
HMTQ,”Justin, I’m no longer pleased with General Vance, he’s not moving fast enough on OPERATION HONOUR for my taste. I hear you appoint my grandson Caprain Windsor as the new Chief of the Defense Staff. He will assume those duties tomorrow.”

Justin “your Majesty, as the Head of the Privy Council I strongly urge you to reconsider this. The Canadaian people will not stand for it.”

HMTQ - “just do it”

Justin - “It is with a heavy heart that I tell you that the Canadian people will not accept this and if you do not change your mi nd we will start the process to get a new head of state.”
Now imagine how his daddy would've replied.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 12:39 PM   #428
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The claim was that the Queen POSSESSES power over and above elected Canadian officials. I backed the claim with wording from the Con, the supreme law of the land.
And again you completely ignore the fact that the way a law is enforced in reality is much more meaningful than what the law itself says. You really don't want to address this.

Quote:
If it's meaningless, why does it need to be amended? Why do stringent conditions need to be met in order to amend it?
You can't possibly claim to not understand why. Because when you have obsolete laws that make no difference or create no problems it's just more hassle than it's worth to change or revoke them. When they do cause problems or issues, as this would, then it becomes convenient to do so.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 12:40 PM   #429
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,052
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Now imagine how his daddy would've replied.
Probably something about "fuddle.....".

Yeah, I'm old 'cause I remember that.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 11th December 2018, 12:45 PM   #430
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Are any parts of the Constitution NOT meaningless? Which ones?
__________________
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 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, 12:52 PM   #431
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Are any parts of the Constitution NOT meaningless? Which ones?
Please read the previous responses to understand what you're being told. Stop asking everyone to spoon-feed you the reason why reality trumps theory, and why laws as-written are trumped by laws as-enforced.

Until you make a modicrum of effort towards that, stop asking us to do your work for you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 12:55 PM   #432
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
From Post #383:



Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
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".
So it was written, so it shall be.


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, 01:06 PM   #433
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And again you completely ignore the fact that the way a law is enforced in reality is much more meaningful than what the law itself says. You really don't want to address this.
You keep harping on common law.

From Wiki:
"Common law is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals. The defining characteristic if "common law" is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts."

How does that relate to the Con? When have Articles 9 or 15 ever been challenged to create a precedent concerning them?
I'll ask you again, how does the Constitution, supreme law, fall under 'common law'? Can you explain 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
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 01:13 PM   #434
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Please read the previous responses to understand what you're being told. Stop asking everyone to spoon-feed you the reason why reality trumps theory, and why laws as-written are trumped by laws as-enforced.

Until you make a modicrum of effort towards that, stop asking us to do your work for you.
What you're saying is that I'm supposed to prove YOUR claim that the Constitution, or parts of it are meaningless. Is that how this works?
__________________
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 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, 01:19 PM   #435
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How does that relate to the Con? When have Articles 9 or 15 ever been challenged to create a precedent concerning them?
I'll ask you again, how does the Constitution, supreme law, fall under 'common law'? Can you explain that?
Stop repeating "supreme law" as if it's a magic word that makes your argument correct. The point, which you constantly dodge, is that these articles have never been applied and there's precedent to show that, were the monarchy attempt to intrude on parliamentary power, she'd be stripped of her ability to do so very quickly. You have never addressed this except to repeat that the constitution is the supreme law, ignoring that it can be changed, ignored or made obsolete.

Quote:
What you're saying is that I'm supposed to prove YOUR claim that the Constitution, or parts of it are meaningless. Is that how this works?
Your understanding of my posts is about as good as your understanding of Canadian legal matters.

No, what I'm saying is that given your demonstrated unwillingness to listen and learn from your mistakes, don't expect people to put any further effort into educating you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 01:19 PM   #436
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,723
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I made a simple claim, not a thesis. The claim was that the Queen POSSESSES power over and above elected Canadian officials. I backed the claim with wording from the Con, the supreme law of the land.
You introduced your thesis previously in the thread. It will inform our conversation from there on out.

But this particular claim is much simpler. Also, it's wrong.

The constitution grants supreme power to the Queen. But the actual possession of the power is in the hands of the Canadian government. This is not written anywhere; rather, it's the practical reality of how governing authority actually works.

You know the phrase, "possession is nine tenths of the law"? This is exactly why that saying exists. It doesn't matter who has authority on paper. It matters who actually possesses the power to act.

If the Queen commanded the Canadian armed forces to attack Russia, against the wishes of the Canadian people and their government, what would happen? How would the Queen compel obedience?

ETA: Here, I'll make you a deal. I'll acknowledge your point that on paper the Queen rules Canada. In return, you'll acknowledge my point that in practice, the Queen has no power to enforce that rule.

Last edited by theprestige; 11th December 2018 at 01:21 PM.
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 11th December 2018, 01:23 PM   #437
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What you're saying is that I'm supposed to prove YOUR claim that the Constitution, or parts of it are meaningless. Is that how this works?

What you are supposed to look at is how Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth countries operate in the real world, not in the fantasy world of your dreams. Every rebuttal on this thread has shown that the Queen is not relevant to the practical operation of Governments, regardless of the wording of the Constitution, or alternatively support you hypothesis.


You made the assertion that she wields her Constitutional power but you cannot give one example of Her Majesty actually doing one damn thing, and you never will, because it does not happen. Prove your hypothesis. That is how it works.




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, 01:24 PM   #438
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,176
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
ETA: Here, I'll make you a deal. I'll acknowledge your point that on paper the Queen rules Canada. In return, you'll acknowledge my point that in practice, the Queen has no power to enforce that rule.
Good luck with that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 11th December 2018, 02:34 PM   #439
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,936
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Political history lesson time.

The doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy arises from Charles Stuart and his argument that as a King anointed by God to rule, Parliament existed to exercise his will. Parliament said, "Wait a minute, there are limits to your power."

When Charles decided to go "No, there are no limits on my exercise of power," and gathered an army to enforce said opinion, Parliament did the same (the gathering of an army) and lo, the English Civil War happened.

Fast forwarding to the end, Charles lost the argument, and his life. His son James was reinstated as King after the "I'm not a King, but I'll exercise all the powers of one in the same way that got the last one killed" died and tried to leave his title and authority to his son was deposed and Charles II promised to not exercise his powers against the advice of Parliament. Charles went on to successfully rule.

His brother, James II and VII, decided that he'd rather follow the example of the first Charles and defy Parliament. He was then deposed and his daughter and her husband were installed in his place.

Since that time, it's been pretty clear in the United Kingdom who has the real power - Parliament. The monarch still has quite a bit of theoretical power, but the practical exercise of that power is minimal.

Canada uses the British model of government, including the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. This is part of the "unwritten constitution" inherited from the UK and I think a major strength of the Canadian system of government in that the means of exercising power by the government is flexible and readily adapted to changes in societal needs that a written constitution can be.

Essentially, should the reigning monarch attempt to exercise power contrary to the advice of the Canadian Parliament, then much like Charles I and James II, they will find themselves out of a position where they would be unable to exert any form of authority (even the moral authority that the current monarch is able to demonstrate due to a lifetime of service). Said monarch would not likely loose their head in the matter of Charles I, or be forced into exile and compelled to live on the charity of others such as James II or Edward VII (being ordinarily resident elsewhere), but they would no longer be able to assert that they are the Queen/King of Canada.
You Canucks have a soft spot of Charles II because he was the one who gave the charter to the Hudson's Bay Company.....

BTW, remember Monty Python;s "Oliver Cromwell" number.
__________________
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 11th December 2018, 03:13 PM   #440
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
What you are supposed to look at is how Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth countries operate in the real world, not in the fantasy world of your dreams. Every rebuttal on this thread has shown that the Queen is not relevant to the practical operation of Governments, regardless of the wording of the Constitution, or alternatively support you hypothesis.


You made the assertion that she wields her Constitutional power but you cannot give one example of Her Majesty actually doing one damn thing, and you never will, because it does not happen. Prove your hypothesis. That is how it works.

Norm
How many times do I have to repeat I never made a claim about her use of power. Only speculation. How can I give an real world example of something that's speculative?

I see how it all operates. A family that has had great wealth and power, who's ancestors raped and pillaged the world to create the British Empire, just give it all up because...well, whatever. Somebody asked them to, I suppose.

The idea they would cloak their power by exercising it behind the scenes is just too preposterous to consider.
__________________
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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.