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 8th December 2018, 06:12 AM   #201
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,793
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
World court systems are great examples of authority with no power. The ICC could in theory try all manner of war crimes. Only when they go after the wrong country, they get shut down. The World Court ruled against China on the Nine Dash Line. Notice them redrawing any maps lately? According to their charter, the court had the authority. It just got ignored.

Authority, no power.
My next question is why in Canada? Why do they employ a system with formalities to not be exercised seriously built in while in their neighbors to the South, Congress two years ago had to announce electoral college votes for faith spotted eagle?

There seems to be little doubt that faithless electors could change the results of an election and there would be no crisis.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 8th December 2018 at 06:19 AM.
BobTheCoward 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 8th December 2018, 06:33 AM   #202
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,083
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Thank you for a thoughtful post.

The Queen would never dream of openly ruling that she can enact laws without going through Parliament. Any such move would give the game away. The public would realize their vote is meaningless and there would be big trouble. The system is designed keep the real power hidden. Hidden in plain sight as evidenced by Articles #9 and #15 in particular.

They use the phrase, "is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."
Essentially, the Queen gave Canada the Constitution so that it may be self-governing - to a point. The supreme authority over Canada belonged to the Queen before the Constitution, and the Constitution stipulates that her authority of and over Canada shall continue.

It's very straightforward. There is no higher law than the Constitution.
The written part is enforceable by the courts. The unwritten Conventions are not.
It's set up so that if push ever should come to shove, the courts have to go by what the Constitution says. And it's clearly 100% on the side of the Queen.
So the notion that the CONstitution gave Canada complete autonomy, leaving the Queen as a figurehead, simply isn't true.

If it ever went beyond that, to some kind of armed revolt, the Canadian Armed Forces have all sworn to obey their Command-in-Chief - the Queen, not the gov't.
And I can't see any reason it would ever get anywhere near that point.

Add to that the Queen is the 'Sovereign' and nobody, not the gov't nor the courts can tell the Sovereign what to do.

So in every legal sense, the Queen is top dog. The public is sold the idea that the Queen obeys the unwritten Convention rules and rubber stamps everything. The ruse is cemented in the public's mind because they only ever see her performing 'ceremonial' duties. We're not privy to any communications between the Queen and the gov't.
We don't know the frequency or nature of any directives that are handed down.
That part is well hidden from the public.

Now, if one believes that someone who has supreme power is not going to exercise it, then none of the above matters. That person will go on believing the figurehead fable despite any facts to the contrary.

The possibility that someone would not exercise their supreme power is, in my mind, as close to zero as it gets.
One of the constitutional issues in Canada and New Zealand is that the origin of the country is partly dependant on treaties between the Crown and indigenous peoples. These founding treaties do limit certain actions. This is also an issue potentially with removing the Queen as head of state; treaty negotiations may need to be re-entered, not in itself a bad thing but if you are of the if its not broke don't dismantle it persuasion (as many people are) the anachronism of the Queen may be better than emulating others and ending up with a Putin or Trump as head of state.

You say precedent is irrelevant; this is wrong, in a common law system precedent is law.
Planigale 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 8th December 2018, 06:36 AM   #203
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,083
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
World court systems are great examples of authority with no power. The ICC could in theory try all manner of war crimes. Only when they go after the wrong country, they get shut down. The World Court ruled against China on the Nine Dash Line. Notice them redrawing any maps lately? According to their charter, the court had the authority. It just got ignored.

Authority, no power.
The enforcement arm of the ICC is the security council, the problem is that five countries have veto powers so no action can be taken to enforce decisions against those nations interests.
Planigale 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 8th December 2018, 06:54 AM   #204
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,114
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The enforcement arm of the ICC is the security council, the problem is that five countries have veto powers so no action can be taken to enforce decisions against those nations interests.
Hence, authority with no power.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 07:07 AM   #205
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,603
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
By the same token, nowhere does it say that the Queen can enact laws without the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons.

However, with the right judges in the Superior court, your argument might stick assuming that the Superior court has final jurisdiction. This is the case with the high court in Australia. Originally, the constitution permitted appeals from high court decisions to the Privy Council in England. The Australia Act in 1986 (which was rubber stamped by the Queen) closed off this avenue.

I can't find anything in the Canadian constitution that gives the Superior court final jurisdiction. I guess that lies with the Queen herself. I have never heard of the Queen ruling that she can enact laws without going through the Canadian parliament but I guess it's theoretically possible.

Maybe Canada needs a constitutional court with final jurisdiction with judges appointed by parliament.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in Canada.

We cut off the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1949 if memory serves.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 8th December 2018, 07:32 AM   #206
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,114
Itchy Boy, I'm going to tell you a secret and it should scare you more than anything. There is no one in charge of everything. The world is just a bunch of competing interests, power, natural forces, economic forces all interacting. Countries miscalculate their enemies and abilities and end up in wars with outcomes no one ever expected. Investment banks get involved in complicated transactions that even they don't understand and fall, taking the world economy with them. Voters go nuts and elect morons as leaders. It's all just a jumble and no one is running it. You should find that terrifying.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 08:57 AM   #207
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,083
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Hence, authority with no power.
Limited rather than none.
Planigale 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 8th December 2018, 10:45 AM   #208
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in Canada.

We cut off the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1949 if memory serves.
I'm only going on what I read in the constitution that the boy linked to. There may be other legislation/agreements that apply.
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 11:58 AM   #209
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That sounds like an each way bet. On the one hand you say that the Queen won't exercise her powers in such a blatant manner and on the other hand you say that she will take advantage of the powers given her by the constitution.

There is no way that the Queen could covertly exercise her powers contrary to the wishes of the Canadian parliament or the Canadian people. If she tried then the whole world would know about it.

If she really wanted to meddle in Canadian affairs then she would only need to do what the corporate giants do: pay not-bribes to politicians to help them get elected to be her puppets. She could even hide her identity behind a string of corporations. She wouldn't need any special constitutional powers to do that.

That said, I don't like the Canadian constitution. Senators are appointed by the Governor General for LIFE! And if the Senate blocks a bill from the House of Commons then there is no way to resolve the deadlock. Ditto for the Canadian "Privy Council" (the equivalent of "cabinet" or "executive council"). There is no requirement for members to be MPs. And Ditto for the Superior Court.

However, there is no evidence that anybody is appointed to these positions without a recommendation from the governing party.
She doesn't 'meddle' in Canadian affairs - she directs them.
But as I said, if you believe people with supreme power aren't going to use it, then you may as well tune out of this thread.
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 8th December 2018, 12:05 PM   #210
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
She doesn't 'meddle' in Canadian affairs - she directs them.
But as I said, if you believe people with supreme power aren't going to use it, then you may as well tune out of this thread.
I was curious about how well you could argue your case. I guess I have my answer.
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 12:10 PM   #211
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
You said some people say. You can't tell us who these people were. You made a claim you can't support. That's intellectual cowardice at best and dishonesty at worst.
Tell you what. Go find an article or video that talks about Presidential bloodlines. You don't even have to read it or watch it.

But once you're aware of it's existence, then you too can claim, "Some people say".
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 8th December 2018, 12:16 PM   #212
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I was curious about how well you could argue your case. I guess I have my answer.
Well, I can't argue any better than the evidence available, can I?

Tell me, what evidence is more legitimate than the Constituton?

Oh, I know. All the words people have posted here about 'what if' and about the Conventions and custom. Yes, I see it now. All those words have meaning and can be enforced by the courts. The words in the Constitution have no meaning or force.

Have I got that right now?
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 8th December 2018, 12:38 PM   #213
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Itchy Boy, I'm going to tell you a secret and it should scare you more than anything. There is no one in charge of everything. The world is just a bunch of competing interests, power, natural forces, economic forces all interacting. Countries miscalculate their enemies and abilities and end up in wars with outcomes no one ever expected. Investment banks get involved in complicated transactions that even they don't understand and fall, taking the world economy with them. Voters go nuts and elect morons as leaders. It's all just a jumble and no one is running it. You should find that terrifying.
I do agree that no ONE is in charge of EVERYTHING. There's no Dr. Evil.

Rather, a small network of people are in charge of all the big stuff.
15 years of research have led me to this inescapable conclusion.
For example, a handful of companies owning the vast majority of the media.

Maybe when Norman finally shows us all the 'titular' wording in the Constitution I'll learn my lesson. Or when somebody comes up with any legal wording whatsoever that disproves my original claim.
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 8th December 2018, 12:41 PM   #214
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Well, I can't argue any better than the evidence available, can I?

Tell me, what evidence is more legitimate than the Constituton?

Oh, I know. All the words people have posted here about 'what if' and about the Conventions and custom. Yes, I see it now. All those words have meaning and can be enforced by the courts. The words in the Constitution have no meaning or force.

Have I got that right now?
You quoted my post without apparently understanding it.

Let me simplify: Given that the Queen CAN "direct" Canadian affairs, what evidence is there that she is doing so? Or is this a tune-out-able offence?
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 12:43 PM   #215
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Hence, authority with no power.
I ask for the third time, would you kindly explain the difference to us and provide an example or two?
Inquiring minds want to know.
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 8th December 2018, 12:51 PM   #216
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You quoted my post without apparently understanding it.

Let me simplify: Given that the Queen CAN "direct" Canadian affairs, what evidence is there that she is doing so? Or is this a tune-out-able offence?
I made it clear in my reply to your 'thoughtful' post.
There is direct evidence that she HAS the power.

There is no direct evidence that she uses it. We're not privy to any private communications between the countries or their leaders.
Any evidence for the use of her power is indirect, like the fact that there's a full time Gov Gen representing the Queen. If the Queen was just a figurehead, there would be no need for a full time Gov Gen. But this doesn't PROVE she uses her power. A little common sense will tell you she does.

That's why I said that if you believe someone who HAS supreme power is not going to use it, this thread is not for you.

In the real world, anyone who has power will use it.
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 8th December 2018, 12:54 PM   #217
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,686
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I do agree that no ONE is in charge of EVERYTHING. There's no Dr. Evil.

Rather, a small network of people are in charge of all the big stuff.
15 years of research have led me to this inescapable conclusion.
For example, a handful of companies owning the vast majority of the media.

Maybe when Norman finally shows us all the 'titular' wording in the Constitution I'll learn my lesson. Or when somebody comes up with any legal wording whatsoever that disproves my original claim.
Reading Internet CT websites is not research.
__________________
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 8th December 2018, 01:14 PM   #218
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,814
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I guess you missed the posts where it was pointed out the Conventions are unwritten and therefore not legally binding.
Except that the experts say otherwise.

Quote:
Show us something in writing that limits the Queen's power.
I did. If you choose not to accept it, that's entirely your choice.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus 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 8th December 2018, 01:21 PM   #219
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Except that the experts say otherwise.


I did. If you choose not to accept it, that's entirely your choice.
Are you referring to this bit you posted?

"Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers."

That's not legal language in a legal document - that's just somebody talking.

Show us anything that explicitly says the Conventions are legally binding and enforceable by the courts. There is nothing.

It's an absurd notion from the start. Unwritten rules cannot be enforced by any court.
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 8th December 2018, 01:25 PM   #220
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Reading Internet CT websites is not research.
As if you know what research I've done. Make yourself useful and put some evidence on the table.
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 8th December 2018, 01:46 PM   #221
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Let me try to make this very, very simple for you folk.

There are two types of monarchy. Absolute Monarchy and Constitutional Monarchy.

In the old days when monarchy was absolute, the monarch could order your head chopped off because they didn't like the look of your shoes. This could be done openly and the monarch would suffer no legal consequences.

In a Constitutional Monarchy, the power of the Monarch is defined and LIMITED by a Constitution. Fine.
If the limits are not defined in the Constitution or other legal document, then there are, in effect, no limits.

You folks want to put this baby to bed? Simple.
Kindly help Norman and show us any words or phrases from the Canadian Constitution that limit the Queen's power.
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 8th December 2018, 01:56 PM   #222
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Let me try to make this very, very simple for you folk.

There are two types of monarchy. Absolute Monarchy and Constitutional Monarchy.
...
You forgot the third type of monarchy, the 'figurehead' which is powerless and completely ornamental.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:02 PM   #223
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
You forgot the third type of monarchy, the 'figurehead' which is powerless and completely ornamental.
If you do your homework, you'll find Canada's form of gov't is called a "Constitutional Monarchy".
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 8th December 2018, 02:22 PM   #224
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you do your homework, you'll find Canada's form of gov't is called a "Constitutional Monarchy".
Nah, it's the 'figurehead' variety.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:29 PM   #225
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
One of the constitutional issues in Canada and New Zealand is that the origin of the country is partly dependant on treaties between the Crown and indigenous peoples. These founding treaties do limit certain actions. This is also an issue potentially with removing the Queen as head of state; treaty negotiations may need to be re-entered, not in itself a bad thing but if you are of the if its not broke don't dismantle it persuasion (as many people are) the anachronism of the Queen may be better than emulating others and ending up with a Putin or Trump as head of state.

You say precedent is irrelevant; this is wrong, in a common law system precedent is law.
Unless I'm mistaken, precedents are decided in court cases.

Mistaken or not, can you cite any precedents that are legally binding on the Queen and limit her power? Can you provide the source for your citation? Thanks.
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 8th December 2018, 02:30 PM   #226
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
Nah, it's the 'figurehead' variety.
OK, I bet you didn't do your homework in school either, did you?
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 8th December 2018, 02:36 PM   #227
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, I bet you didn't do your homework in school either, did you?
I did. You didn't however.
The Queen has been completely ceremonial for a long time. Even in the UK.
The idea that she could go over to Canada and start ordering troops around is a joke.

ETA: Perhaps this thread should be moved to the conspiracy section? As we are right out of reality here.

Last edited by The Moog; 8th December 2018 at 02:40 PM.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:35 PM   #228
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,422
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Maybe when Norman finally shows us all the 'titular' wording in the Constitution I'll learn my lesson. Or when somebody comes up with any legal wording whatsoever that disproves my original claim.
The wording, which is what you seem obsessed with, doesn't have to say "titular". That's merely a single-word description of what the reality is.

It works sort of like this: Nobody here is calling you a swivel-eyed, deliberately-deaf conspiracy-nut. But for all intents and purposes, we don't need to...
__________________
...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

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 8th December 2018 at 03:36 PM.
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 8th December 2018, 03:50 PM   #229
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
I did. You didn't however.
The Queen has been completely ceremonial for a long time. Even in the UK.
The idea that she could go over to Canada and start ordering troops around is a joke.

ETA: Perhaps this thread should be moved to the conspiracy section? As we are right out of reality here.
I showed legal evidence directly from the Constitution to back my claim.
Show me your evidence to back your claim.
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 8th December 2018, 03:59 PM   #230
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
The wording, which is what you seem obsessed with, doesn't have to say "titular". That's merely a single-word description of what the reality is.

It works sort of like this: Nobody here is calling you a swivel-eyed, deliberately-deaf conspiracy-nut. But for all intents and purposes, we don't need to...
I didn't ask for the word 'titular'. I asked for any language in the Con that defines the Queen's role as titular. You claimed the Con made clear the Queen's role was titular. So, post the words from the Con that say or imply that her role is as you say. Post any words from the Con that limit her power. Put up or shut up.

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 8th December 2018 at 04:02 PM. Reason: clarification
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 8th December 2018, 04:02 PM   #231
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,593
So have the shape shifting reptilians made their inevitable appearance yet?
__________________
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 8th December 2018, 04:07 PM   #232
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So have the shape shifting reptilians made their inevitable appearance yet?
You're the first.
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 8th December 2018, 04:34 PM   #233
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I made it clear in my reply to your 'thoughtful' post.
There is direct evidence that she HAS the power.

There is no direct evidence that she uses it. We're not privy to any private communications between the countries or their leaders.
Any evidence for the use of her power is indirect, like the fact that there's a full time Gov Gen representing the Queen. If the Queen was just a figurehead, there would be no need for a full time Gov Gen. But this doesn't PROVE she uses her power. A little common sense will tell you she does.

That's why I said that if you believe someone who HAS supreme power is not going to use it, this thread is not for you.

In the real world, anyone who has power will use it.
Rationalization is not evidence. I have already agreed with you that the Queen has the constitutional powers you say she has and asked what evidence (direct or indirect) there is that she is exercising those powers.

Evidence would include instances of the Governor General refusing to give assent to legislation passed by parliament or the GG ignoring recommendations when it comes to making appointments to the Senate, Superior Court or Privy Council and making another choice entirely. You have already rejected the idea that the Queen is covertly working behind the scenes to influence elections etc and is actually directing Canadian affairs from above.

Instead, your argument is that she MUST be using her powers because the constitution gives them to her. That kind of circular reasoning doesn't pass muster in a skeptics forum like this one.

At best you could argue that there is a risk that she may use her powers in the future but you have already rejected "what ifs" arguments like these.
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 04:44 PM   #234
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Rationalization is not evidence. I have already agreed with you that the Queen has the constitutional powers you say she has and asked what evidence (direct or indirect) there is that she is exercising those powers.

Evidence would include instances of the Governor General refusing to give assent to legislation passed by parliament or the GG ignoring recommendations when it comes to making appointments to the Senate, Superior Court or Privy Council and making another choice entirely. You have already rejected the idea that the Queen is covertly working behind the scenes to influence elections etc and is actually directing Canadian affairs from above.

Instead, your argument is that she MUST be using her powers because the constitution gives them to her. That kind of circular reasoning doesn't pass muster in a skeptics forum like this one.

At best you could argue that there is a risk that she may use her powers in the future but you have already rejected "what ifs" arguments like these.
I told you there's no direct evidence the Queen uses her power.
I also told you that on planet Earth, where I live, people with power use it. It may be different on your planet.
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 8th December 2018, 04:50 PM   #235
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Rationalization is not evidence. I have already agreed with you that the Queen has the constitutional powers you say she has and asked what evidence (direct or indirect) there is that she is exercising those powers.

Evidence would include instances of the Governor General refusing to give assent to legislation passed by parliament or the GG ignoring recommendations when it comes to making appointments to the Senate, Superior Court or Privy Council and making another choice entirely. You have already rejected the idea that the Queen is covertly working behind the scenes to influence elections etc and is actually directing Canadian affairs from above.

Instead, your argument is that she MUST be using her powers because the constitution gives them to her. That kind of circular reasoning doesn't pass muster in a skeptics forum like this one.

At best you could argue that there is a risk that she may use her powers in the future but you have already rejected "what ifs" arguments like these.
Just to clarify, the Con does not 'give' her any power. It merely stipulates that the power she had before the Con existed shall continue.
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 8th December 2018, 04:56 PM   #236
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
...I also told you that on planet Earth, where I live, people with power use it. It may be different on your planet.
She has no power. Its allowed to stay on paper for the reason that there has been no attempt to use it.
Any attempt would end up with her getting the boot.

This is what people have been trying to point out to you.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:02 PM   #237
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I told you there's no direct evidence the Queen uses her power.
So how can she use her power without leaving a trail?
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 06:07 PM   #238
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,793
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
She has no power. Its allowed to stay on paper for the reason that there has been no attempt to use it.
Any attempt would end up with her getting the boot.

This is what people have been trying to point out to you.
Why would they boot her while the US accepts any similar constitutional hard ball?
BobTheCoward 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 8th December 2018, 06:33 PM   #239
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,427
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why would they boot her while the US accepts any similar constitutional hard ball?
The POTUS gets booted out even if he isn't playing constitutional hard ball (term limits).
__________________
"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 8th December 2018, 06:42 PM   #240
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,793
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The POTUS gets booted out even if he isn't playing constitutional hard ball (term limits).
I wasn't talking about the president. I meant any issue of constitutional hard ball.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 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.