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 6th December 2018, 10:26 AM   #81
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,217
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, she has the classical method of enforcement: Send British troops to tell the uppity Canadians what's what.

But peace makes plenty.
We will never go to war with Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Henri McPhee 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 6th December 2018, 11:16 AM   #82
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,495
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I was only pointing out that blood is a big factor in becoming leader. Does anyone think Justin or George Bush would have become leader if not for their name/bloodline? I sure don't.
If that was the case how do you explain that Carolyn Mulroney was not confirmed as leader of the Ontario PC party, given that her father had been PM?

And of course if your argument is that loyalty to the Crown is a determining factor in becoming politically powerful in Canada, I need you to explain Lucien Bouchard, Leader of the opposition and head of a separatist party, and the various separatist leaders of the province of Quebec.

While the monarch can potentially exercise great power in theory, in practice the exercise of that power has been greatly restricted by custom to the point where the individual exercising regal or vice-regal powers is little more than a figurehead and that great weight of custom has effectively restricted said powers to the point where the PM is the de facto head of state, but not the de jure.
__________________
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 6th December 2018, 11:49 AM   #83
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
@ Ziggurat I've backed my claims with clear proof.
All you've provided is your own words with nothing to back them.

Until you can show something substantial to back your claims, I don't see the point in responding to you.
Cheers
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 6th December 2018, 11:51 AM   #84
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, she has the classical method of enforcement: Send British troops to tell the uppity Canadians what's what.

But peace makes plenty.
She's Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. No need for British troops.
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 6th December 2018, 12:11 PM   #85
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
@ Ziggurat I've backed my claims with clear proof.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 6th December 2018, 12:53 PM   #86
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
She's Command-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. No need for British troops.
There is if the Canadians stop respecting her authority.

Really, the way the Commonwealth is set up, the Monarch's authority to govern derives entirely from the consent of the governed. The moment Canadians stop consenting, the Queen loses all authority and all enforcement power. The moment she tries to impose her will on Canada's elected officials, the constitution goes out the window and she loses all power.
theprestige 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 6th December 2018, 01:45 PM   #87
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
If that was the case how do you explain that Carolyn Mulroney was not confirmed as leader of the Ontario PC party, given that her father had been PM?

And of course if your argument is that loyalty to the Crown is a determining factor in becoming politically powerful in Canada, I need you to explain Lucien Bouchard, Leader of the opposition and head of a separatist party, and the various separatist leaders of the province of Quebec.

While the monarch can potentially exercise great power in theory, in practice the exercise of that power has been greatly restricted by custom to the point where the individual exercising regal or vice-regal powers is little more than a figurehead and that great weight of custom has effectively restricted said powers to the point where the PM is the de facto head of state, but not the de jure.
1. You won't ever see Bouchard as PM. Leader of the opposition, especially provincial, is not up that high in the pyramid. He doesn't have enough power to do much.

2. 'Custom' is NEVER going to restrict real power. People who have had real power and wealth for generations like the royal family are not going to simply give that up because of custom, or because they were politely asked to give up their power.

Still no commenter has offered anything but their own words to show that the Queen is merely a figurehead. What's it going to take for you people to see what's right before your eyes?
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 6th December 2018, 01:56 PM   #88
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There is if the Canadians stop respecting her authority.

Really, the way the Commonwealth is set up, the Monarch's authority to govern derives entirely from the consent of the governed. The moment Canadians stop consenting, the Queen loses all authority and all enforcement power. The moment she tries to impose her will on Canada's elected officials, the constitution goes out the window and she loses all power.
Show me where it's written and has the force of law. Otherwise, what you wrote are just words and carry zero weight.
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 6th December 2018, 01:57 PM   #89
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Thanks. You've now proven beyond any doubt that you have nothing of value to add here. Cheers.
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 6th December 2018, 02:10 PM   #90
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,492
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
That's the point. Leaders are being put in place because of who they are, not on merit. They are just personalities sold to the public.

Yes in a democracy the public have to be persuaded to vote for politicians, what's your preferred system?
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 6th December 2018, 02:11 PM   #91
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
If that was the case how do you explain that Carolyn Mulroney was not confirmed as leader of the Ontario PC party, given that her father had been PM?

And of course if your argument is that loyalty to the Crown is a determining factor in becoming politically powerful in Canada, I need you to explain Lucien Bouchard, Leader of the opposition and head of a separatist party, and the various separatist leaders of the province of Quebec.

While the monarch can potentially exercise great power in theory, in practice the exercise of that power has been greatly restricted by custom to the point where the individual exercising regal or vice-regal powers is little more than a figurehead and that great weight of custom has effectively restricted said powers to the point where the PM is the de facto head of state, but not the de jure.
Carolyn Mulrony's political career is still in early stages. Being the offspring of a former PM doesn't guarantee you'll get the job. But what the hell did Justin do to deserve to become PM? Absolutely nothing, as far as I know.

It won't surprise me in the least if Carolyn becomes the first female PM a few election cycles from 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 6th December 2018, 02:13 PM   #92
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I was only pointing out that blood is a big factor in becoming leader. Does anyone think Justin or George Bush would have become leader if not for their name/bloodline? I sure don't.
What about Obama's name/bloodline? Is there royalty in there?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 6th December 2018, 02:16 PM   #93
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
what's your preferred system?
At the moment, I don't want to dilute this thread by going off topic.
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 6th December 2018, 02:17 PM   #94
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
At the moment, I don't want to dilute this thread by going off topic.
You brought up name/bloodlines, not me.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 6th December 2018, 02:19 PM   #95
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,461
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I was only pointing out that blood is a big factor in becoming leader. Does anyone think Justin or George Bush would have become leader if not for their name/bloodline? I sure don't.
Doesn't really explain, Obama, Reagan, Carter, Trump or Clinton. None of them came from political bloodlines. There are a few Senators perhaps where politics is a family business and the Kennedy family is worth mentioning. When you look at our political class though, family dynasties are hardly the norm.
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 6th December 2018, 02:21 PM   #96
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show me where it's written and has the force of law. Otherwise, what you wrote are just words and carry zero weight.
What exactly do you expect would happen if, tomorrow, Trudeau announced on Canadian television that the queen could do one and that from now on power will be seen to derive from the will of the people (or they were going to vote in a president, or whatever it might be)?

The new aircraft carrier isn't actually in service until 2020, so we'd probably have to wait till then to actually indulge in the most embarassing invasion since the Swiss last accidentally invaded Liechtenstein.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 6th December 2018, 02:21 PM   #97
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
What about Obama's name/bloodline? Is there royalty in there?
Some say there is, not only Obama but the Bushes and many if not most past U.S. Presidents.

I don't know how much truth there is to all that. I've done no genealogical research so I have nothing to offer on that topic.
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 6th December 2018, 02:22 PM   #98
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Some say there is, not only Obama but the Bushes and many if not most past U.S. Presidents.

I don't know how much truth there is to all that. I've done no genealogical research so I have nothing to offer on that topic.
Some say the world is flat.

Facts or retract.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 6th December 2018, 02:27 PM   #99
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What exactly do you expect would happen if, tomorrow, Trudeau announced on Canadian television that the queen could do one and that from now on power will be seen to derive from the will of the people (or they were going to vote in a president, or whatever it might be)?

The new aircraft carrier isn't actually in service until 2020, so we'd probably have to wait till then to actually indulge in the most embarassing invasion since the Swiss last accidentally invaded Liechtenstein.
If the scenario you describe ever comes about, we'll see what happens.

Meantime, do you have anything with the force of law that affects Articles #9 and #15? That's all that matters here. That is the only thing that would make a valid argument against 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 6th December 2018, 02:33 PM   #100
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Some say the world is flat.

Facts or retract.
I'm not sure what this post of your's is supposed to mean but let me once again make clear that I'm not among the "some" that say Presidents are connected to royal bloodlines. I don't know anything about that. Are we clear now?

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 6th December 2018 at 02:34 PM. Reason: replace Qmark with Period
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 6th December 2018, 02:38 PM   #101
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'm not sure what this post of your's is supposed to mean but let me once again make clear that I'm not among the "some" that say Presidents are connected to royal bloodlines. I don't know anything about that. Are we clear now?
Was this not your post:
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I was only pointing out that blood is a big factor in becoming leader. Does anyone think Justin or George Bush would have become leader if not for their name/bloodline? I sure don't.
well, at least you've retracted, good show.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 6th December 2018, 03:09 PM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,460
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show me where it's written and has the force of law. Otherwise, what you wrote are just words and carry zero weight.
I'm not sure what "the force of law" means here. As far as I'm concerned, "the force of law" isn't a thing. Compliance with a law is a thing. Enforcement of a law is a thing. But laws on paper are just words. They only carry the weight that the governed and the government actually put on them.

In the US, the federal prohibitions on marijuana have "the force of law", but several states have elected to ignore them, and the federal government has declined to enforce them over the states' objections. The law is there, but it is subordinate to the willingness of the people to go along with it.

Same with the US federal rules on immigration, which have "the force of law", but which are ignored or abrogated by several states. Compared to the states' refusal to comply, and the government's unwillingness to enforce, the "force of law" is essentially meaningless.

And the same also with the Queen's authority to command the Canadian armed forces. It's written in the constitution with all the "force of law", but that turns out to be only as much force as the Canadians care to give it. If they decide to ignore the Queen's commands, nothing on that piece of paper can force them to comply. If the Queen wanted to enforce the law, she'd have to do it with actual force, not the "force of law".

Please tell me you understand that laws are not magic spells that bind the citizenry to compliance against their will.
theprestige 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 6th December 2018, 03:30 PM   #103
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If the scenario you describe ever comes about, we'll see what happens.
I'll bet you a million pounds that, if it ever happens, there will not be British expiditionary force sailing out from Portsmouth to Newfoundland. No, two million pounds.


Quote:
Meantime, do you have anything with the force of law that affects Articles #9 and #15? That's all that matters here. That is the only thing that would make a valid argument against my original claim.
No.

The Australians had a vote and decided to keep the queen as their head of state. They decided to keep her, primarily, I think, for the reasons I outlined in post 41.

Remarkably, the UK didn't call up the reserves for the imminnent invasion of Australia should they have decided to kick Liz out.

The law can say what it likes. The political, social and logistical realities of waging war upon Canada to force all the mounties to put HRH on their caps absolutely trump any legislation.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 6th December 2018, 05:09 PM   #104
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Was this not your post:

well, at least you've retracted, good show.
If you read my last 2 post to you more carefully, you'll see there was nothing to retract. I explicitly said that OTHERS had made that claim.
I told you I didn't know anything about it.

Putting words in peoples' mouths is not good posting.
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 6th December 2018, 05:26 PM   #105
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,461
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Some say there is.
Name of publication and date please. You don't have to go all Turabian Bibliographic on us. The name of the publication where these "some people" say this and month will do.

ETA: These some people are wrong. Obama's father was a Luo, a tribe on the shores of Lake Victoria and geographically separated from the seats of power in Kenya, Nairobi and Mombasa. Though Kenyan (unlike Ugandan) tribes don't really do royalty as such, the Kikuyu are the dominate tribe in politics and any "royal" blood would likely be found in that group. His mother is a dry hole when it comes to royalty as well. She was born in Wichita Kansas and later moved to Hawaii. You might have had something had she been a Hawaiian native as there are still descendants of their royal family alive today.

Last edited by Craig4; 6th December 2018 at 05:40 PM.
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 6th December 2018, 05:46 PM   #106
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,516
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
We will never go to war with Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Except over rugby. Or cricket.
__________________
...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 6th December 2018, 05:47 PM   #107
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,461
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show me where it's written and has the force of law. Otherwise, what you wrote are just words and carry zero weight.
One should be careful to not confuse power and authority. The law grants authority but not power. It's funny how one can have authority up until the point one tries to use it.

Last edited by Craig4; 6th December 2018 at 05:52 PM.
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 6th December 2018, 05:59 PM   #108
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,516
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
My argument, that the Queen has power over our elected officials has nothing to do with the change in gender. At least not until the Queen is gone. Why wouldn't the gov't quickly pass a constitutional ammendment to change the gender? I doubt anyone would object.

What do you think will happen?
You CLEARLY have no idea about how this works, the history of how it got there, and any of the rest of your own constitution.

The Canadian government CANNOT arbitrarily change the constitution. It has to be by referendum. Surely you would know this if you had the first inkling. So the wording for that stands AS WRITTEN. And the wording in the same document AS WRITTEN refers specifically to "the Queen". So when Charles becomes king (and unless he undergoes a gender-change), the Canadian constitution AS WRITTEN no longer applies.

That is exactly the same argument you are using for assigning extraordinary powers to the Queen. Those powers are supposedly there AS WRITTEN.

But now you are arguing that "everyone knows" the wording for "the Queen" actually means "the monarch". That is, the AS WRITTEN wording can be interpreted in other ways, and that it has a different application IN PRACTICE.

Well, duh! I think a number of us here have been trying to tell you exactly that about the constitutional reserve powers of the monarch. Perhaps you might care to go study law? Try specialising in constitutional law. A number of folks on this forum have already done this. Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law. You have your work cut out for you.

Go!

Quote:
On another note, remember saying this...?
"I have only just read your Canadian constitution for the first time, particularly the bit on Executive Powers. And in just about all respects, it clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law."

So I'll ask again, can you produce any wording from the Constitution that describes the Queen's titular role?
It doesn't have to. Doing a Google word search is not how this works. But if you understood the law, that might have been obvious from the start.
__________________
...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 6th December 2018, 07:02 PM   #109
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure what "the force of law" means here. As far as I'm concerned, "the force of law" isn't a thing. Compliance with a law is a thing. Enforcement of a law is a thing. But laws on paper are just words. They only carry the weight that the governed and the government actually put on them.

In the US, the federal prohibitions on marijuana have "the force of law", but several states have elected to ignore them, and the federal government has declined to enforce them over the states' objections. The law is there, but it is subordinate to the willingness of the people to go along with it.

Same with the US federal rules on immigration, which have "the force of law", but which are ignored or abrogated by several states. Compared to the states' refusal to comply, and the government's unwillingness to enforce, the "force of law" is essentially meaningless.

And the same also with the Queen's authority to command the Canadian armed forces. It's written in the constitution with all the "force of law", but that turns out to be only as much force as the Canadians care to give it. If they decide to ignore the Queen's commands, nothing on that piece of paper can force them to comply. If the Queen wanted to enforce the law, she'd have to do it with actual force, not the "force of law".

Please tell me you understand that laws are not magic spells that bind the citizenry to compliance against their will.
If something's on the books, it has the force of law. It does not lose the force of law just because it is not enforced. It still CAN be enforced at any time.

The Constitution is not just 'law'. It is the foundational legal document that defines what Canada is.

If the Queen and the gov't came to loggerheads - say, about whether to send Canadian troops to some war or not, the gov't would have to take the Queen to court.

But they would never do that because the Constitution clearly states the Queen is in control of the Canadian military. The gov't has no case to begin with.

The only way the gov't could even have a case is if something exists that has the force of law and that directly affects Article #15. No such thing exists.

That's why nobody here has been able to produce anything to show that the Queen is just a figurehead. Posters here have proclaimed that the Constitution is full of language that 'clearly defines the Queen's role as titular'.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a single example.
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 6th December 2018, 07:08 PM   #110
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,516
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If something's on the books, it has the force of law. It does not lose the force of law just because it is not enforced. It still CAN be enforced at any time.

The Constitution is not just 'law'. It is the foundational legal document that defines what Canada is.

If the Queen and the gov't came to loggerheads - say, about whether to send Canadian troops to some war or not, the gov't would have to take the Queen to court.

But they would never do that because the Constitution clearly states the Queen is in control of the Canadian military. The gov't has no case to begin with.

The only way the gov't could even have a case is if something exists that has the force of law and that directly affects Article #15. No such thing exists.

That's why nobody here has been able to produce anything to show that the Queen is just a figurehead. Posters here have proclaimed that the Constitution is full of language that 'clearly defines the Queen's role as titular'.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a single example.
We have. If you don't accept it, or you don't have the background knowledge required to understand, that's not our problem, is it.
__________________
...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 6th December 2018, 07:08 PM   #111
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If something's on the books, it has the force of law. It does not lose the force of law just because it is not enforced. It still CAN be enforced at any time.

The Constitution is not just 'law'. It is the foundational legal document that defines what Canada is.

If the Queen and the gov't came to loggerheads - say, about whether to send Canadian troops to some war or not, the gov't would have to take the Queen to court.

But they would never do that because the Constitution clearly states the Queen is in control of the Canadian military. The gov't has no case to begin with.

The only way the gov't could even have a case is if something exists that has the force of law and that directly affects Article #15. No such thing exists.

That's why nobody here has been able to produce anything to show that the Queen is just a figurehead. Posters here have proclaimed that the Constitution is full of language that 'clearly defines the Queen's role as titular'.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a single example.
But you missed the part where he "force of law" equals zero.
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 6th December 2018, 07:15 PM   #112
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,516
But let's go with the "law as written" stuff. Here's some "fun" Canadian laws. I wonder if these will also raise your ire.

1. In BC it’s illegal to kill a Sasquatch.
2. In Vancouver it was illegal to sell a stove on a Wednesday from 1947 to 1986.
3. It's illegal to own more than 4 pet rats at a time in Port Coquitlam.
4. In Oak Bay you could be fined $100 if you parrot talks to loud.
5. In Victoria, street entertainers aren't allowed to give kids balloon animals.
6. Its illegal for someone under the age of 15 to be outside without a guardian between the hours of 12am and 6am in St. Paul, Alberta.
7. Current law in Alberta states that it is against the law to paint a wooden ladder.
8. In Calgary, it is illegal to buy or sell non-prescription contact lenses at costume shops.
9. In Alberta it’s illegal to set fire to the leg of a wooden-legged man.
10. Rails to tie horses must be provided by businesses in Alberta.
11. In Fort Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan it’s illegal to walk down the main street with untied shoes.
12. It's Illegal to whistle in Petrolia, Ontario. According to the town's website, "Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing is prohibited at all times."
13. It's illegal to attach a siren to your bike in Sudbury.
14. In Toronto, it is illegal to swear in a public park.
15. If you don’t pay your hotel bill in Ontario, the hotel can legally sell your horse.
16. In Oshawa, it is against the law to climb a tree.
17. Purple garage doors are against the law in Kanata, Ontario.
18. Don't try getting all fancy on your bike in Ottawa because taking your feet of the pedals while riding is illegal.
19. Don't swear at your mother in public in Toronto...you could get arrested.
20. It is against the law to eat ice cream on Bank Street on a Sunday while in Ottawa.
21. In Ontario, it’s illegal to drive your sleigh on the highway without at least two bells attached to the harness of your horse.
22. In Etobicoke, Ontario it’s illegal to have more than 3.5 inches of water in a bathtub.
23. In Uxbridge, Ontario it’s illegal to have an Internet connection faster than 56K.
24. You could be arrested if you drag a dead horse down Toronto’s Yonge Street on Sundays.
25. In Quebec City its illegal to swear in French.
26. In Quebec it is illegal to impersonate a foreigner.
27. In Beaconsfield, Quebec you are breaking the law if you have more then two colours of paint on your house.
28. In Fredericton it is against the law to wear a snake, or carry a pet lizard in public.
29. Unhinging somebody’s front gate is a crime in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
30. It is against the law for Taxi drivers in Halifax to wear shorts or t-shirts.
31. In Charlottetown, it’s illegal to intentionally ring any doorbell or knock at any door in order to disrupt, disturb, or annoy any person in his home or place of work.
32. According to current Canadian law "Everyone commits an offense who…makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic."
33. In Canada it is illegal to challenge someone to a duel or accept an invitation to a duel.
34. Do not try to scare the Queen in Canada, unless you want to be arrested.
35. It is illegal to remove a band aid in public in Canada
36. “Offending a place with a bad smell” is illegal under the criminal code in all of Canada.

https://www.narcity.com/ca/bc/vancou...sted-in-canada
__________________
...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 6th December 2018, 07:20 PM   #113
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You CLEARLY have no idea about how this works, the history of how it got there, and any of the rest of your own constitution.

The Canadian government CANNOT arbitrarily change the constitution. It has to be by referendum. Surely you would know this if you had the first inkling. So the wording for that stands AS WRITTEN. And the wording in the same document AS WRITTEN refers specifically to "the Queen". So when Charles becomes king (and unless he undergoes a gender-change), the Canadian constitution AS WRITTEN no longer applies.

That is exactly the same argument you are using for assigning extraordinary powers to the Queen. Those powers are supposedly there AS WRITTEN.

But now you are arguing that "everyone knows" the wording for "the Queen" actually means "the monarch". That is, the AS WRITTEN wording can be interpreted in other ways, and that it has a different application IN PRACTICE.

Well, duh! I think a number of us here have been trying to tell you exactly that about the constitutional reserve powers of the monarch. Perhaps you might care to go study law? Try specialising in constitutional law. A number of folks on this forum have already done this. Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law. You have your work cut out for you.

Go!

It doesn't have to. Doing a Google word search is not how this works. But if you understood the law, that might have been obvious from the start.
Let's not get off track on the gender thing or constitutional amendments.

Until the Queen dies, the Constitution is very much in effect, word for word and that's all we're concerned with in this thread.

So I'm still waiting for something concrete that affects Articles #9 and #15. I've already explained that anything that falls under 'Constitutional Convention' is not enforceable by the courts. Above, see my example regarding sending troops to war.
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 6th December 2018, 07:23 PM   #114
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
We have. If you don't accept it, or you don't have the background knowledge required to understand, that's not our problem, is it.
Please point out the example again. I totally missed it.

I assume you're referring to an example of wording that has the force of law and somehow supersedes the words in the Constitution. That example?
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 6th December 2018, 07:24 PM   #115
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,516
You haven't taken a word of this on board, have you. Not learned a thing.

Is this deliberate, by any chance?
__________________
...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 6th December 2018, 07:29 PM   #116
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
But let's go with the "law as written" stuff. Here's some "fun" Canadian laws. I wonder if these will also raise your ire.

1. In BC it’s illegal to kill a Sasquatch.
2. In Vancouver it was illegal to sell a stove on a Wednesday from 1947 to 1986.
3. It's illegal to own more than 4 pet rats at a time in Port Coquitlam.
4. In Oak Bay you could be fined $100 if you parrot talks to loud.
5. In Victoria, street entertainers aren't allowed to give kids balloon animals.
6. Its illegal for someone under the age of 15 to be outside without a guardian between the hours of 12am and 6am in St. Paul, Alberta.
7. Current law in Alberta states that it is against the law to paint a wooden ladder.
8. In Calgary, it is illegal to buy or sell non-prescription contact lenses at costume shops.
9. In Alberta it’s illegal to set fire to the leg of a wooden-legged man.
10. Rails to tie horses must be provided by businesses in Alberta.
11. In Fort Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan it’s illegal to walk down the main street with untied shoes.
12. It's Illegal to whistle in Petrolia, Ontario. According to the town's website, "Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing is prohibited at all times."
13. It's illegal to attach a siren to your bike in Sudbury.
14. In Toronto, it is illegal to swear in a public park.
15. If you don’t pay your hotel bill in Ontario, the hotel can legally sell your horse.
16. In Oshawa, it is against the law to climb a tree.
17. Purple garage doors are against the law in Kanata, Ontario.
18. Don't try getting all fancy on your bike in Ottawa because taking your feet of the pedals while riding is illegal.
19. Don't swear at your mother in public in Toronto...you could get arrested.
20. It is against the law to eat ice cream on Bank Street on a Sunday while in Ottawa.
21. In Ontario, it’s illegal to drive your sleigh on the highway without at least two bells attached to the harness of your horse.
22. In Etobicoke, Ontario it’s illegal to have more than 3.5 inches of water in a bathtub.
23. In Uxbridge, Ontario it’s illegal to have an Internet connection faster than 56K.
24. You could be arrested if you drag a dead horse down Toronto’s Yonge Street on Sundays.
25. In Quebec City its illegal to swear in French.
26. In Quebec it is illegal to impersonate a foreigner.
27. In Beaconsfield, Quebec you are breaking the law if you have more then two colours of paint on your house.
28. In Fredericton it is against the law to wear a snake, or carry a pet lizard in public.
29. Unhinging somebody’s front gate is a crime in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.
30. It is against the law for Taxi drivers in Halifax to wear shorts or t-shirts.
31. In Charlottetown, it’s illegal to intentionally ring any doorbell or knock at any door in order to disrupt, disturb, or annoy any person in his home or place of work.
32. According to current Canadian law "Everyone commits an offense who…makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic."
33. In Canada it is illegal to challenge someone to a duel or accept an invitation to a duel.
34. Do not try to scare the Queen in Canada, unless you want to be arrested.
35. It is illegal to remove a band aid in public in Canada
36. “Offending a place with a bad smell” is illegal under the criminal code in all of Canada.

https://www.narcity.com/ca/bc/vancou...sted-in-canada
Norman, I refer you to post #25. You said, "And in just about all respects, it [Constitution] clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law."

I've asked a few times now for samples. Quotes from the Constitution. Why haven't you produced even one?
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 6th December 2018, 07:30 PM   #117
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Please point out the example again. I totally missed it.

I assume you're referring to an example of wording that has the force of law and somehow supersedes the words in the Constitution. That example?
The idea of puppet leaders is not new. Puppets don't actually have the power to do what the law says they can do. I don't understand why Canada would be an exception.
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 6th December 2018, 07:34 PM   #118
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,516
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Norman, I refer you to post #25. You said, "And in just about all respects, it [Constitution] clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law."

I've asked a few times now for samples. Quotes from the Constitution. Why haven't you produced even one?
Because that's not how the law works.

But you have been told that many times by multiple people, who explained it in full. So if you want to remain pig-ignorant then go right ahead.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
__________________
...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 6th December 2018, 07:37 PM   #119
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You haven't taken a word of this on board, have you. Not learned a thing.

Is this deliberate, by any chance?
Now you're just evading my simple, reasonable request because you can't produce a word from the Constitution 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 6th December 2018, 07:44 PM   #120
Itchy Boy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Because that's not how the law works.

But you have been told that many times by multiple people, who explained it in full. So if you want to remain pig-ignorant then go right ahead.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Norman, you made a specific claim that the Constitution CLEARLY defines the Queen's titular role, yet you continually refuse to provide any example.

How then, do you expect me to take anything you say seriously?
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 03:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.