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 15th December 2018, 01:15 PM   #601
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,007
Itchy Boy, where does the law get its authority from?
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 15th December 2018, 01:17 PM   #602
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Itchy Boy, where does the law get its authority from?
According to itchy, the queen, apparently.

Countries shucking off that stupid yoke cannot exist in itchy World.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 15th December 2018, 01:19 PM   #603
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ireland. Formerly a vassal state, then a commonwealth nation, then a republic. Liz got the big PFO by popular vote and is ignored by by our constitution. Because **** her.

Nope. By violent revolution because **** her.

Nope. Violent revolution. Because **** her.

Understand, we simply told the brits and their royalty to simply get lost. End of.
OK, by violent revolution. Nobody denies that violent revolution can overthrow power. In fact, that's pretty much the only way it can be done.

But for the purposes of this discussion we're not considering that as an option. We're talking about staying within the boundaries of 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 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 15th December 2018, 01:22 PM   #604
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, by violent revolution. Nobody denies that violent revolution can overthrow power. In fact, that's pretty much the only way it can be done.
False.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
But for the purposes of this discussion we're not considering that as an option. We're talking about staying within the boundaries of law.
False.

Grow up.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 15th December 2018, 01:35 PM   #605
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Itchy Boy, where does the law get its authority from?
Is this a trick question?

Remember the Constitution is laws that govern the conduct of the government, not the public.

The laws passed by the gov't, on the other hand, mostly deal with how the public is supposed to behave.

You could say the law gets its authority from the gov't who actually writes and passes the laws the rest of us have to follow.

But the gov't in turn, gets its authority from the Crown, via the written Constitution.

Every law in Canada begins with "Her Majesty, [blah blah] enacts as follows...". The Crown is clearly enacting the law, not the gov't.

So, I would say the law gets its ultimate authority from The Crown who has delegated authority to pass laws for the rest of us, to the gov't.

If you want to go beyond that, then the law gets its ultimate authority by the threat of violence.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 01:37 PM   #606
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
False.

False.

Grow up.
How about explaining 'false' instead of making an empty one word proclamation?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
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 15th December 2018, 01:38 PM   #607
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How about explaining 'false' instead of making an empty one word proclamation?
You lied. What more is there?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 15th December 2018, 01:44 PM   #608
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
For my country, the process was we sent the monarch a Dear John letter; and when he didn't get the hint, we shot his people in the face until they figured it out.

ETA: A while later, some of our countrymen tried the same thing, but the face-shooting part broke the other way, and so they're still with us today.
Yes, we know violence can overturn power. But we're not considering that option in this discussion. We're talking about non-violent, legal procedures.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 01:47 PM   #609
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You lied. What more is there?
OK, I'll bite. What did I say that I knew to be untrue?
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 01:53 PM   #610
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, I'll bite. What did I say that I knew to be untrue?
Everything you posted. HRH has no say in Canadian matters, in fact Canada could referendum her right out if they so desired, but don't because it would be a waste of time and resources addressing a non-issue, and there is a certain nostalgia for the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE.

As if that even existed anymore. You might as well be advocating for the East India company.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 15th December 2018, 02:01 PM   #611
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Everything you posted. HRH has no say in Canadian matters, in fact Canada could referendum her right out if they so desired, but don't because it would be a waste of time and resources addressing a non-issue, and there is a certain nostalgia for the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE.

As if that even existed anymore. You might as well be advocating for the East India company.
So, everything I posted I knew to be untrue, eh? Thank you for your piercing insight and detailed analysis backed with unimpeachable source material. As a debater, you're in a league of your own.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 02:05 PM   #612
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,007
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, by violent revolution. Nobody denies that violent revolution can overthrow power. In fact, that's pretty much the only way it can be done.

But for the purposes of this discussion we're not considering that as an option. We're talking about staying within the boundaries of law.
No.

You're saying we have to stay within the boundaries of the law, and we keep telling you that the real world doesn't work that way.
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 15th December 2018, 02:05 PM   #613
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, everything I posted I knew to be untrue, eh? Thank you for your piercing insight and detailed analysis backed with unimpeachable source material. As a debater, you're in a league of your own.
Sorry for your trouble. I deal in reality, not fantasies such as is proposed in this thread.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 15th December 2018, 02:24 PM   #614
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No.

You're saying we have to stay within the boundaries of the law, and we keep telling you that the real world doesn't work that way.
I'm not saying we HAVE to do anything. We've been talking about law, written or unwritten. We haven't been considering violence in the discussion because obviously at that point all bets are off, no laws apply anymore whether written or not.

We're talking about how 'civilized' society handles disputes, and that is through the courts.

What you keep telling me is that the highest laws, those that govern the government, are the unwritten, unjudiciable 'rules', which are not laws.
You keep telling me these rules are religiously followed while the judiciable laws are completely ignored. You keep telling me the supreme law of the land is invalid. You keep telling me the real world doesn't operate according to law.

I don't buy 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 15th December 2018, 02:30 PM   #615
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, by violent revolution. Nobody denies that violent revolution can overthrow power. In fact, that's pretty much the only way it can be done.

But for the purposes of this discussion we're not considering that as an option. We're talking about staying within the boundaries of law.

OK then.


India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Hong Kong, Nauru, Sarawak, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Zambia, Malaysia, Brunei...


I could name more.


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 15th December 2018, 05:37 PM   #616
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
OK then.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Hong Kong, Nauru, Sarawak, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Zambia, Malaysia, Brunei...

I could name more.

Norm
Well, you have me at a disadvantage there. I don't know enough about those countries' histories to comment on them.

I only know something about Canada.

Every situation is different.
I had a brief look at the Australian Constitution and from what I could tell it was similar to Canada's but with differences that would take some study to understand.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 06:56 PM   #617
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Well, you have me at a disadvantage there. I don't know enough about those countries' histories to comment on them.

I only know something about Canada.

Every situation is different.
I had a brief look at the Australian Constitution and from what I could tell it was similar to Canada's but with differences that would take some study to understand.

So when you said "Nobody denies that violent revolution can overthrow power. In fact, that's pretty much the only way it can be done.", you said it without having a clue what you were talking about and how wrong you were. How is anybody supposed to take your unevidenced hypothesis seriously when you do not even know about or understand anything about the history, even recent history of the dissolution of the British Empire. (The one you think is still going strong)


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 15th December 2018, 07:58 PM   #618
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,880
I wonder what watching movies is like with itchy boy

-king Tommen is running the show in GoT
-the king of Rohan clearly has the legal authority to take council from work tongue
-guy pearce is required to take orders from Ben Kingsley.
BobTheCoward 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 15th December 2018, 09:56 PM   #619
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Well, you have me at a disadvantage there. I don't know enough about those countries' histories to comment on them.

I only know something about Canada.

Every situation is different.
I had a brief look at the Australian Constitution and from what I could tell it was similar to Canada's but with differences that would take some study to understand.
Frankly, you don't know enough about how Canada works.

You apparently were absent the many days in civics classes where they discussed Parliamentary Supremacy and how it came about in England, how the 1837 and 1838 Rebellions broke the Family Compact in Upper and Lower Canada and Responsible Government was brought about, the Westminister Accords, the King-Byng Affair, the elimination of the Judicial Court of the Privy Council ceased to be the ultimate court of appeal for Canada, and the repatriation of the Constitution. You must have missed how precedent is used by the Canadian legal system to interpret the written law.

And you haven't paid attention to the last hundred years of world events and the dissolution of the British Empire and the many ways that the British have lost control, both peaceful and not.

Your analysis lacks nuance and an understanding of legal norms and government principles and an inability to see anything beyond your own POV. Hundreds of legal scholars and dozens of people on this forum have explained that the formal powers vested in the Queen are exercised only on the advice of the elected officials and have been for centuries - your response is to whinge that you can't understand how someone with that kind of formal power could not use it, so it must therefore be exercised in such a way that millions of elected officials in dozens of countries since 1688 have been doing the bidding of a monarch, but either haven't been aware of it or are too cowed to blow the secret (pro tip- I'm fairly sure those nations not inclined to have a favourable view of aspects of British rule, say the Irish, Americans, Indians, South Africans, Rhodesians, etc might have talked by now if that was the case.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 01:03 AM   #620
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Frankly, you don't know enough about how Canada works.

You apparently were absent the many days in civics classes where they discussed Parliamentary Supremacy and how it came about in England, how the 1837 and 1838 Rebellions broke the Family Compact in Upper and Lower Canada and Responsible Government was brought about, the Westminister Accords, the King-Byng Affair, the elimination of the Judicial Court of the Privy Council ceased to be the ultimate court of appeal for Canada, and the repatriation of the Constitution. You must have missed how precedent is used by the Canadian legal system to interpret the written law.

And you haven't paid attention to the last hundred years of world events and the dissolution of the British Empire and the many ways that the British have lost control, both peaceful and not.

Your analysis lacks nuance and an understanding of legal norms and government principles and an inability to see anything beyond your own POV. Hundreds of legal scholars and dozens of people on this forum have explained that the formal powers vested in the Queen are exercised only on the advice of the elected officials and have been for centuries - your response is to whinge that you can't understand how someone with that kind of formal power could not use it, so it must therefore be exercised in such a way that millions of elected officials in dozens of countries since 1688 have been doing the bidding of a monarch, but either haven't been aware of it or are too cowed to blow the secret (pro tip- I'm fairly sure those nations not inclined to have a favourable view of aspects of British rule, say the Irish, Americans, Indians, South Africans, Rhodesians, etc might have talked by now if that was the case.
Precedent is used to determine civil and criminal law. Precedent, as far as I know, has not been used to determine anything in the written Constitution in Canada. There has to be a challenge to a law for a precedent to be set. Have any of the laws in the Constitution been challenged in court?
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 01:38 AM   #621
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Frankly, you don't know enough about how Canada works.

You apparently were absent the many days in civics classes where they discussed Parliamentary Supremacy and how it came about in England, how the 1837 and 1838 Rebellions broke the Family Compact in Upper and Lower Canada and Responsible Government was brought about, the Westminister Accords, the King-Byng Affair, the elimination of the Judicial Court of the Privy Council ceased to be the ultimate court of appeal for Canada, and the repatriation of the Constitution. You must have missed how precedent is used by the Canadian legal system to interpret the written law.

And you haven't paid attention to the last hundred years of world events and the dissolution of the British Empire and the many ways that the British have lost control, both peaceful and not.

Your analysis lacks nuance and an understanding of legal norms and government principles and an inability to see anything beyond your own POV. Hundreds of legal scholars and dozens of people on this forum have explained that the formal powers vested in the Queen are exercised only on the advice of the elected officials and have been for centuries - your response is to whinge that you can't understand how someone with that kind of formal power could not use it, so it must therefore be exercised in such a way that millions of elected officials in dozens of countries since 1688 have been doing the bidding of a monarch, but either haven't been aware of it or are too cowed to blow the secret (pro tip- I'm fairly sure those nations not inclined to have a favourable view of aspects of British rule, say the Irish, Americans, Indians, South Africans, Rhodesians, etc might have talked by now if that was the case.
"Parliamentary supremacy is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies."

As far as I know, this does not apply to Canada. If it's in constitutional law, then it must be written in the Constitution, which I don't think it is.

And PS says the legislative body holds sovereignty over all other government institutions. In countries where PS applies, I don't know if The Crown is included in 'government institutions'.

In Canada the monarchy is the foundation of the executive (Queen-in-Council), legislative (Queen-in-Parliament) and judicial (Queen-on-the-Bench).
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 01:43 AM   #622
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Some of you have a very impressive knowledge of general history, far superior to mine.

It is said that history is written by the winners.
Napoleon said, "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

I think there's some truth in 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 16th December 2018, 02:11 AM   #623
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
"Parliamentary supremacy is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies."

As far as I know, this does not apply to Canada. If it's in constitutional law, then it must be written in the Constitution, which I don't think it is.

And PS says the legislative body holds sovereignty over all other government institutions. In countries where PS applies, I don't know if The Crown is included in 'government institutions'.

In Canada the monarchy is the foundation of the executive (Queen-in-Council), legislative (Queen-in-Parliament) and judicial (Queen-on-the-Bench).
Why are you so afraid of that dreaded word "convention"?

It is by convention that the Queen only follows recommendations - not by law (constitutional or otherwise). As others have pointed out, if the Queen were to stop following convention then it would end badly for her.
__________________
"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 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 16th December 2018, 02:36 AM   #624
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Here's how simple it is to ensure Royal Assent is 'rubber stamped'.

The Crown can examine any proposed bill before it goes to Parliament.
They can say, "we can't grant this bill Royal Assent unless you make the following changes...".

The proposers of the bill have no choice but to make the changes or drop the bill entirely.

That's because they know they can't force The Crown to grant RA under the non judicable Conventions, and they would have no case with which to challenge the judicable Constitution - which maintains The Crown's legal power to withhold RA.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
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 16th December 2018, 03:18 AM   #625
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,712
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's how simple it is to ensure Royal Assent is 'rubber stamped'.

The Crown can examine any proposed bill before it goes to Parliament.
They can say, "we can't grant this bill Royal Assent unless you make the following changes...".

The proposers of the bill have no choice but to make the changes or drop the bill entirely.

That's because they know they can't force The Crown to grant RA under the non judicable Conventions, and they would have no case with which to challenge the judicable Constitution - which maintains The Crown's legal power to withhold RA.
And show one, just one, case in the last, say, 200 years where this has happened.

You can’t. What a ridiculous thread.

ETA, do you know the process of amending bills, by the way? Do you think someone can get out an eraser and change it? Maybe you do, but it has to go back to parliament. I’m sure you can point out times when the government has put an already passed bill back for amendment because royal assent was not granted.

I don’t know why I’m responding to rubbish.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 16th December 2018 at 03:23 AM.
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 16th December 2018, 03:23 AM   #626
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Crown can examine any proposed bill before it goes to Parliament.
They can say, "we can't grant this bill Royal Assent unless you make the following changes...".
That NEVER happens. If the crown tried then there would be hell to pay.
__________________
"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 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 16th December 2018, 07:10 AM   #627
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's how simple it is to ensure Royal Assent is 'rubber stamped'.

The Crown can examine any proposed bill before it goes to Parliament.
They can say, "we can't grant this bill Royal Assent unless you make the following changes...".

The proposers of the bill have no choice but to make the changes or drop the bill entirely.

That's because they know they can't force The Crown to grant RA under the non judicable Conventions, and they would have no case with which to challenge the judicable Constitution - which maintains The Crown's legal power to withhold RA.
It should be a simple matter then for you to show ANY instance of a reigning monarch or Governor General doing just that.

Find one. Any Canadian legislature since 1850 (yes, before Confederation).
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 11:45 AM   #628
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
It should be a simple matter then for you to show ANY instance of a reigning monarch or Governor General doing just that.

Find one. Any Canadian legislature since 1850 (yes, before Confederation).
How is it a simple matter for me to show that a private communication between the proposers of a bill and The Crown staff has taken place?

The whole point of the scenario is that it's done away from the public eye.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 11:57 AM   #629
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Seeing as how The Crown has the legal authority to refuse Royal Assent, it seems logical that anyone proposing a bill would run it by The Crown as standard procedure.

It's to nobody's advantage to let a bill go through the whole Parliamentary process only to be refused RA and not be passed into 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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 16th December 2018 at 11:58 AM. Reason: sp
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 16th December 2018, 12:49 PM   #630
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,477
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How is it a simple matter for me to show that a private communication between the proposers of a bill and The Crown staff has taken place?

The whole point of the scenario is that it's done away from the public eye.
Ah, so it only happens in your imagination, then.

Seriously, have you the first idea of how your own federal politics operates? I suspect you don't. All you have is a silly conspiracy theory that clearly has no basis in fact at all for any part of it. And when you try to make up stories to make it seem true, it all runs rapidly headlong into the brick walls of fact in all directions. And yet you still continue to insist your reality is right, no matter how warped it is.

There's words to describe that sort of mental problem, you know...
__________________
...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 16th December 2018, 01:14 PM   #631
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Ah, so it only happens in your imagination, then.

Seriously, have you the first idea of how your own federal politics operates? I suspect you don't. All you have is a silly conspiracy theory that clearly has no basis in fact at all for any part of it. And when you try to make up stories to make it seem true, it all runs rapidly headlong into the brick walls of fact in all directions. And yet you still continue to insist your reality is right, no matter how warped it is.

There's words to describe that sort of mental problem, you know...
What is there to prevent the scenario I described?
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 01:16 PM   #632
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,712
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Seeing as how The Crown has the legal authority to refuse Royal Assent, it seems logical that anyone proposing a bill would run it by The Crown as standard procedure.

It's to nobody's advantage to let a bill go through the whole Parliamentary process only to be refused RA and not be passed into law.
Well it must be easy to find a bill that has been returned to the parliament because royal assent as refused.

As others have said, you have no idea how your parliament works.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 01:23 PM   #633
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Seeing as how The Crown has the legal authority to refuse Royal Assent, it seems logical that anyone proposing a bill would run it by The Crown as standard procedure.

It's to nobody's advantage to let a bill go through the whole Parliamentary process only to be refused RA and not be passed into law.
GOTO 626
__________________
"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 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 16th December 2018, 01:34 PM   #634
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Crown can examine any proposed bill before it goes to Parliament. They can say, "we can't grant this bill Royal Assent unless you make the following changes...".

The proposers of the bill have no choice but to make the changes or drop the bill entirely.

That's because they know they can't force The Crown to grant RA under the non judicable Conventions, and they would have no case with which to challenge the judicable Constitution - which maintains The Crown's legal power to withhold RA.

I am interested in who you think The Crown actually is in this case as the term as it is used legally is an abstract and changeable concept. Please name the real person who would actually refuse to assent to Legislation in the name of The Crown, as you have only been saying The Crown this and The Crown that, then "they" (referring to The Crown) can do this and that).


Who is or are "they"?



Are "they" the Queen, the Governor-General, Governor in Counsel, the Cabinet, or somebody else?


If you write a letter to The Crown, who does it go to?



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 16th December 2018 at 01:40 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 16th December 2018, 01:39 PM   #635
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
"There are two kinds of world history: one is the official, mendacious, intended for use in schools, the other is the secret history, which holds the true causes of events."

- Honoré de Balzac
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 01:57 PM   #636
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What is there to prevent the scenario I described?
Reality.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 16th December 2018, 02:00 PM   #637
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
"There are two kinds of world history: one is the official, mendacious, intended for use in schools, the other is the secret history, which holds the true causes of events."

- Honoré de Balzac
If it's a secret then how do you know about it?
__________________
"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 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 16th December 2018, 02:01 PM   #638
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I am interested in who you think The Crown actually is in this case as the term as it is used legally is an abstract and changeable concept. Please name the real person who would actually refuse to assent to Legislation in the name of The Crown, as you have only been saying The Crown this and The Crown that. Is it the Queen, the Governor-General, Governor in Counsel, the Cabinet, or somebody else?

If you write a letter to The Crown, who does it go to?

Norm
Wiki says this about The Crown Legally ill-defined, the term has different meanings depending on context. I agree and don't assign one specific meaning, precisely because it's impossible to 'name the real person'.

In the scenario I described, that 'real person' is not refusing Consent, they are simply 'warning' the bill's proposers that the bill, as currently written would not be granted RA and explain why. The 'real person' would likely have consulted with others on staff, as opposed to acting alone.

And how would I know the name of the person who would receive my letter to the Crown? I don't know who received my letter to Santa Claus.

The fact remains that the scenario I described is a very simple way to ensure RA is 'rubber stamped' and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to prevent what I described from happening.
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 02:02 PM   #639
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Reality.
Thanks, but could you be a little more specific?
__________________
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 16th December 2018, 02:06 PM   #640
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If it's a secret then how do you know about it?
The guy who said it was Honoré de Balzac, not 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
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 09:05 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.