Constitutional Reform

[g_bambino]

I'm suggesting various first nations are sovereign and everyone has rights to the land they are living on.

That doesn't answer my question. Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs?

It only applies to the Monarchs subjects. Subject status was erased between the 1940s and 1982.

We are all subject to the constitution.

Unilateralism holds very little ethical weight.

Ethics has nothing to do with it. We are talking law here. The law is clear that all land within Canada's borders - including that reserved for First Nations - is under the sovereignty of the monarch.

[William Ashley]

That doesn't answer my question. Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs?

Nope. As I said they are sovereign but everyone has universal rights to the land they and YOU live on.

We are all subject to the constitution.

Why are you all subject to the constitution?

Ethics has nothing to do with it. We are talking law here. The law is clear that all land within Canada's borders - including that reserved for First Nations - is under the sovereignty of the monarch.

I find it funny how you don't think ethics relates to law. YOur statement however is based on a unilaterial assertation. It would be much stronger if we both communicated as to determine how that invalidates my own universal rights that all land is a personal prerogative that must exercise. I don't recognize any rights that you are the monarch may have that infringe upon my personal liberties, Canada is a free society.

If law violates me, the law is invalid because a right individual will have a defense against all reasonable and just law. If just rule does not exist that rule is overthrown and invalidated.

It may present a breach of the peace, I give you that, but it is both our societies. I am not the wrong party though if i am in right, recognize that.

Regina is not always right. Regina and Rex make mistakes. Canada is not absolutist.

Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

That doesn't answer my question. Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs?

Nope. As I said they are sovereign but everyone has universal rights to the land they and YOU live on.

We are all subject to the constitution.

Why are you all subject to the constitution?

Ethics has nothing to do with it. We are talking law here. The law is clear that all land within Canada's borders - including that reserved for First Nations - is under the sovereignty of the monarch.

I find it funny how you don't think ethics relates to law. Your statement however is based on a unilateral assertion. It would be much stronger if we both communicated as to determine how that invalidates my own universal rights that all land is a personal prerogative that must exercise. I don't recognize any rights that you or the monarch may have that infringe upon my personal liberties, Canada is a free society.

Note the less if you know me you know I years ago stated self recognized status. I am not ignorant of Canada or Canadian Laws, I am however bound by reason not anothers dogma. Use what you can reject that which attacks you. Those are relations - as long as I have intent for benefice who cares.

Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[jacee]

That doesn't answer my question. Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs?

We are all subject to the constitution.

Ethics has nothing to do with it. We are talking law here. The law is clear that all land within Canada's borders - including that reserved for First Nations - is under the sovereignty of the monarch.

FACTCHECK: Neither Canada nor it's borders existed at the time of the Royal Proclamation.

So ... no.

[g_bambino]

As I said they are sovereign but everyone has universal rights to the land they and YOU live on.

Do you believe reserves are sovereign territory or not?

Why are you all subject to the constitution?

"You" all? Are you not Canadian and/or not in Canada? All people in Canada are subject to the constitution. Everyone must be so as to maintain an ordered society. Considering one's self free from the constraints of the constitution will land one's self in trouble.

YOur statement however is based on a unilaterial assertation.

That unilateral assertion is a part of the constitution, the supreme law of Canada.

[g_bambino]

Neither Canada nor it's borders existed at the time of the Royal Proclamation.

Not in modern name and shape, no. What's your point?

The colonies of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland already existed on the east coast, the Hudson's Bay Company - a Crown corporation - had a vast and already defined territory across the centre and north of the continent, and the Royal Proclamation confirmed both the extent of the colony of Quebec and the status of the remainder - "all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid" - under the monarch's "Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion".

Further, the Indian Act itself states that "reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart."

[charter.rights]

Do you believe reserves are sovereign territory or not?

"You" all? Are you not Canadian and/or not in Canada? All people in Canada are subject to the constitution. Everyone must be so as to maintain an ordered society. Considering one's self free from the constraints of the constitution will land one's self in trouble.

That unilateral assertion is a part of the constitution, the supreme law of Canada.

The Supreme Court does not agree.

[William Ashley]

Do you believe reserves are sovereign territory or not?

Personally, sure, if sovereign people are in them. Unilateral declaration is problematic. A claim of right among reasonable people based upon the exigencies that exist at a given time - is very vital - to take into consideration. Some first nations people have made declaration to that in a unilateral perspective. There may even be room for bilateral recognition from ex eurocandian and first nations peoples to that effect.

"You" all? Are you not Canadian and/or not in Canada? All people in Canada are subject to the constitution. Everyone must be so as to maintain an ordered society. Considering one's self free from the constraints of the constitution will land one's self in trouble.

I think your claim of required to maintain and orderly society is false (the war measures act or emergencies act are legal determinants more based upon needs of an orderly society) The UK doesn't even have a formal constitution for example. You have the right to your opinion for yourself. The constitution was largely ignored by the police and courts in my dealings with them, if the law ignores the law it is invalidated in dealings with the law. Although I think that it is a sound basis for some, it is not the most effective form of constitution that could be in place right now, nor is it fully respected by the government.

As far as my own status, Canada deems me a Canadian Citizen - and they have not given any clear acknowledgement that they recognize my own position. This however is more so a denial by various individuals that are still around. A local MP was asked to deliver information to parliament - I'm not aware they did. I've contacted various individuals at various levels of government in plain language. As far as there being a willingness to communciate. The CIC citizenship law is fairly straight forward and was checked with CIC. Their legal position and my legal position are not the same. Once again I do not depend on officials of Canada to make my opinions because Canada grants freedom of conscience and belief - in both these factors I am free to have my own beliefs for myself, and in a free society I am open to exercise myself as I choose.

Laws that are reasonable and just should not conflict with me. Those that are not are contrary the fundamental nature of justice and thus are invalid and pro supra quid pro void..

That unilateral assertion is a part of the constitution, the supreme law of Canada.

People are free to make their own decisions. The courts do not uphold the constitution quite regularly unless there is a charter/constitutional challenge given at a higher level of courts.. the courts themselves don't judge based upon the constitution, they don't even sit for the monarch. Unfortunately your statements are not practiced in Canada universally, and there is case law to show that.

Short of the individuals judges are the supreme law if you yourself submit to anything but yourself as a basis of reasonable and rational actions.

The constitution is a sound basis for Canada. Institutionally I tend to agree in many respects; however it depends what form of constitution you are referring to. There are a lot of legal issues except in how you determine it. --- It goes back to the idea of self evident truths.

None the less The government doesn't follow the constitution.

Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[Argus]

You fail the first principle of understanding the issues. Reserves are sovereign lands not surrendered to the Crown and we can't touch them without first asking the First Nations themselves.

I have no interest in arguing with you about your master race theories, okay? Get lost.

[Argus]

Ya right. Dumb is dumb and you take the cake for this week.

I think both of you are pretty good bakers.

[g_bambino]

Personally, sure, if sovereign people are in them.

Well, if it's your personal opinion that First Nations reserves are sovereign territories, then so be it. One wonders, though, how you came to that conclusion, given the plethora of evidence to the contrary: The constitution and other laws clearly place reserves under the sovereignty of the Crown; no First Nation exchanges ambassadors or has formal diplomatic relations with other countries; no First Nation is recognised internationally as a sovereign state; no First Nation sits in the United Nations or belongs to any other international organisation like NATO or NORAD; First Nations are subject to Canadian laws and have their cases heard in Canadian courts; First Nations leaders turn to the Queen as a mediator between they and the federal Cabinet; etc., etc.

The UK doesn't even have a formal constitution for example.

The UK has a constitution. Every country has a constitution.

[+]

Edited September 7, 2011 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

Well, if it's your personal opinion that First Nations reserves are sovereign territories, then so be it. One wonders, though, how you came to that conclusion, given the plethora of evidence to the contrary: The constitution and other laws clearly place reserves under the sovereignty of the Crown; no First Nation exchanges ambassadors with other countries;

Ever been to a powwow?

no First Nation is recognised internationally as a sovereign state; First Nations are subject to Canadian laws and have their cases heard in Canadian courts; First Nations leaders turn to the Queen as a mediator between they and the federal Cabinet; etc., etc.

This is argumentative.

The UK has a constitution. Every country has a constitution.

Not really.

Almost all recognized countries have laws.

Take for instance right now the NTC issue, or Israel being founded from a UN declaration that they ignore. The US consititution is based on a "declaration", or from a UK perspective a peace treaty.

Canada was an "act" not a constitution (in the act it says you can call it the constitution). In both cases these are acts and not formal constitutions. Canada has a plethora of constitutional documents that may or may not be viewed in certain aspects for determination of a branch of law called constitutional law.. not all countries separate the constitution

I think that there is room both ways but you are definitely not correct.

Principles need not exist aside from the law. The idea of administrative law can often be "liquid" based upon a given government administration.

Canada does have rules set out for administration but governments started ignoring that stuff in the 1870's and it is now in case law, which actually colours the constitution to not be what was written. --- Although I don't necessarily agree with those judges who are now dead, but I'm not sure if an appeal is really applicable under current rules. There are also issues of The Canada act and other stuff that is touchy. Canada is actually a very contradictory constitution when compared to the case law in its regard.

The constitution behind that is actually Juridical and the law societies themselves.

Who can judge other than the judge, paper does not speak unless you recite (or have a text to voice device).

It is a lengthy subject.

The Israel thing you could say "the law" is the constitution -- the law being gods law. But various figures in Israel may not agree with that. However various figures in Israel might agree with that. When was the last sacrifice of oxen and rams in israel?

http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/jews-restarting-the-sacrifices-in-israel-tribulation-about-to-begin/

http://bob-mitchell.blogspot.com/2008/05/video-first-passover-sacrifice-in.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv4Ks_5YgIQ

Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Ever been to a powwow?

Irrelevant.

This is argumentative.

Yes, it argues you wrong.

Not really.

Name one country that does not have a constitution.

[jacee]

I believe the reference is to sovereign Indigenous Nations, having always been so throughout history and never having surrendered to anyone, it remains.

Territories ... different issue but similar: territories never "ceded to or purchased by" the Crown, following the law as laid out in the Royal Proclamation, retain Aboriginal title.

"Territories" include all lands in Aboriginal possession at 'contact', except any subsequently legally "ceded to or purchased by" the Crown. (Not just the 'reserves' we know today.

[g_bambino]

I believe the reference is to sovereign Indigenous Nations, having always been so throughout history and never having surrendered to anyone, it remains.

Territories ... different issue but similar: territories never "ceded to or purchased by" the Crown, following the law as laid out in the Royal Proclamation, retain Aboriginal title.

"Territories" include all lands in Aboriginal possession at 'contact', except any subsequently legally "ceded to or purchased by" the Crown. (Not just the 'reserves' we know today.

I can make no sense out of the above.

The Crown has sovereignty over all of Canada; not only do parts of the constitution and other laws affirm this, there are also, besides those with the United States, Denmark, and France, no international borders at which the Crown's sovereignty stops and that of another country begins. Under the umbrella of the Canadian Crown's sovereignty, there are various jurisdictions: federal, provincial, municipal, and Aboriginal, all with varying degrees of autonomy. There are ordered relationships between the various governing organisations of those jurisdictions, including between First Nations governments and the federal government. Land title can be passed between the two, for instance, just as it can be between federal and provincial government. The federal government is barred, however, from taking land reserved for and under the governance of First Nations without consent and compensation ("ceded to or purchased by" the Crown), just as it is from taking land away from provincial jurisdiction without same consent and compensation, despite First Nations having less autonomy from the federal government than do the provinces.

[c/e]

Edited September 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

I have no interest in arguing with you about your master race theories, okay? Get lost.

You don't want to be part of the discussion, that's fine. You don't contribute anything, anyway.

[Saipan]

Ever been to a powwow?

Been to Oktoberfest.

[Saipan]

I believe the reference is to sovereign Indigenous Nations, having always been so throughout history and never having surrendered to anyone, it remains.

Giberish.

Treaty even SPECIFIED, for example, that NO alcohol is permited on reserves. That was already broken too.

[Saipan]

Israel being founded from a UN declaration that they ignore.

Founder by King David. And it's their DUTY to ignore the UN.

[Smallc]

I can make no sense out of the above.

The Crown has sovereignty over all of Canada; not only do parts of the constitution and other laws affirm this, there are also, besides those with the United States, Denmark, and France, no international borders at which the Crown's sovereignty stops and that of another country begins.

What about Russia?

[jacee]

I can make no sense out of the above.

It was unclear, but I am referring to sovereignty of Nations of people - First Nations people - and they have never surrendered their sovereignty as peoples.

The Crown has sovereignty over all of Canada; not only do parts of the constitution and other laws affirm this, there are also, besides those with the United States, Denmark, and France, no international borders at which the Crown's sovereignty stops and that of another country begins. Under the umbrella of the Canadian Crown's sovereignty, there are various jurisdictions: federal, provincial, municipal, and Aboriginal, all with varying degrees of autonomy. There are ordered relationships between the various governing organisations of those jurisdictions, including between First Nations governments and the federal government. Land title can be passed between the two, for instance, just as it can be between federal and provincial government. The federal government is barred, however, from taking land reserved for and under the governance of First Nations without consent and compensation ("ceded to or purchased by" the Crown), just as it is from taking land away from provincial jurisdiction without same consent and compensation, despite First Nations having less autonomy from the federal government than do the provinces.

[c/e]

I think some of what you believe to be true is still not established in law in Canada. Keep in mind that Canadian law includes Aboriginal Law as well as French Civil Code and British Common Law.

Also keep in mind that a "purchase" never paid for is not a purchase at all.

And if you say it is, then I'd like to "purchase" your house and I'll give you a spiffy document to that effect in French (or any language you don't understand) after you deliver your keys to me.

Edited September 8, 2011 by jacee

[Smallc]

It was unclear, but I am referring to sovereignty of Nations of people - First Nations people - and they have never surrendered their sovereignty as peoples.

First Nations peoples within Canada are sovereign only so far as they are separate, independent jurisdictions under the Canadian Crown. They aren't sovereign outside of that.

[jacee]

First Nations peoples within Canada are sovereign only so far as they are separate, independent jurisdictions under the Canadian Crown. They aren't sovereign outside of that.

For clarification ...

Sovereignty of peoples is not tied to a geographic location or jurisdiction such as reserve lands. They are still members of sovereign nations (of people) regardless of where they travel, work or live.

I believe the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples does say "within the state" ie, the UN recognized state of Canada. Not sure if that's being challenged, and it may be there to protect them from countries that might otherwise leave them stateless and without the benefits of formal citizenship.

Aboriginal peoples of Canada are also entitled to all of the benefits of Canadian citizenship by the treatie s, whether or not they chose to consider themselves Canadian.

I think it warrants mentioning that Harper has also declared Quebecers to be a nation of people within Canada.

Edited September 8, 2011 by jacee

[g_bambino]

I think some of what you believe to be true is still not established in law in Canada.

Be specific, please.

[g_bambino]

Sovereignty of peoples is not tied to a geographic location or jurisdiction...

The definition of sovereignty we are using here is the one used in political theory: "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order."¹ Aboriginal people do not possess that. They exercise some authority over their jurisdictions, but are still subject to the higher - the highest, in this country - power of the Canadian Crown, in council, in parliament, and on the bench. They wouldn't be Canadian citizens, if it were otherwise.

I think it warrants mentioning that Harper has also declared Quebecers to be a nation of people within Canada.

He did no such thing. And what he did do had absolutely zero effect on the status under the Crown of people who identify as Québécois. (You make it sound as if Harper - merely a prime minister - had the authority to unilaterally free people and grant them sovereignty!)

[script]

Edited September 8, 2011 by g_bambino