Exegesisme

My reason is on My Own Future-Directed Super-Applied-Meditation. Now, in the state of My Own Future-Directed Super-Applied-Meditation, I communicate with super-natural beings everyday and in dream, mainly about human affairs, and sometimes also about natural affairs. Sometimes they call themselves gods and goddess. However, according to my definition of God, none of them is god or goddess. I argue with them on my definition. These are my personal experience, but I believe that at least thousands of other human beings share similar experiences in various traditions, as grand rouge, the secret branch of Christianity, Sufism in Islam, ​Kabbalah in Jews, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in Eastern and Southern Asia, Daoism in China, Shinto in Japan, and various mysterious practices in human primitive religions. You can see the records of these communications in many classical works, which include Bible, many epics, Dream of the Chamber, Hamlet, Faust and so on. You may also look for and find some videos in internet about these communications. All these records are at least partially experienced in various states of high level of human meditation. On all these records, traditions and my own experiences, I believe there is the perfect one and the only perfect one, who has many other names in different traditions.

A spiritual sinner usually has a safe position of self.

There are so many different opinions, from so many people, each has each's reason.

I see, you got your foundation.

Not actually exists, but perfectly is.

Did you say what you meant as you said?

I know that you believe you are a sinner, so do others.

You did not get that deep, and I will take them to the surface on the next topic.

If you discuss in this way, do you feel any "sorry"?

Now I am in an effort to try to get all these issues fixed. The real problem in you eyes, I see as unconstitutional. Can we fix it through the Supreme Court of Canada? Now I am creating the new topic I promised just now, and we will discuss all issue there.

My Acute Concept Of Canada For Long Future​ By Exegesisme "Political parties play a central role in Canadian democracy and government, representing an important link between the state and society."(1) If you are a Canadian, how do you feel when you read the quoted sentence? I do not know what you feel, really. Here, I tell you what I feel, as a Canadian. My real feeling is, very unhappy with this expression in this way. Why? A, the Name and Identity of Canada Do you hear something about Canada globally? I once heart that peoples globally often takes Canada as the fifty-first state of the USA. In the expression, Canada is "the state", which means a state or one state, but the USA has 50 states. The whole name of the USA is the United States of America. So, you are a state and in America, and more clearly, and they are the United States of America. On name and logically, it is very reasonable that you are seen as "one state of their United States of America". However, the truth is, you are not one state, you have thirteen states, and you are a federal of these thirty states. So, I think, the whole name of Canada should be "the United Canadian States". Now, we are not a state, we are the "United Canadian States". How do you feel, if you are a Canadian? B, the Skeptical Unconstitutional Political Practice This is not the only reason which causes my unhappiness in the quoted sentence. How do you think "Canadian democracy"? The expression "Canadian democracy" is the second reason which causes my unhappiness. Let's see. By definition, A democracy "is ruled by the omnipotent majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man."(2) If our Canadians only have democracy, according to this definition, our minority will "have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority", and each one of us has the possibility to become one of minority in this way or that way. This is terrible. So, I am certainly not happy if our Canada only has democracy, or only stresses democracy too much. However, according to the definition of republic, "A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority"(2), our Canadians have "a representative democracy" "with a written constitution of basic rights" "that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority". So, I am luck that Canada is a republic which is more than a democracy. This happiness is not so much. As I have been studying further, I found that our Canadian style of republic is very weak. Our unwritten constitutional conventions give "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister of Canada"​, but "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms" , and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)" (3). The quoted information means our rights and freedoms in our constitution are only in very general terms, and their precise meaning is waiting the interpretation and clarification by the Canadian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. The weakness of our Canadian style of republic has been tested in our Canadian style politics. "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents"​(4). Here you see, our Canadian MPs even can not protect their freedom in the House of Commons, how can each of our people protect her or his freedom in other situation? Now I believe that it is the time for the Supreme Court of Canada to interpret and clarify the freedom of Canadian MPs in the House of Commons, and what is the border-zone between the freedom of Canadian MPs and the party discipline specifically in the House of Commons. I hope that every Canadian standing up and pay attention to promote this event, for this will be a chance for you to understand your rights and freedoms living, which are only in general terms in the Constitution of Canada. C, the Essential Meaning and Various Definition of Republic Definition 1, "A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority."(2) Definition 2, " Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history."(5) Definition 3, "A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law."(6) Definition 4, "In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch. Currently, 147 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names."(6) Definition 5, "A Republic...has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. " (7) Definition 6, " A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution), recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals." and "Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. " (8) By refining the six definitions of republic, I define a republic as: a well reasonably representative government with well reasonably separated power, rules on a creatively evolutional constitution, with the fights and freedoms protected at different level in different range as the levels of holism, wholity, majority, minority, and individual. I define the word republic in this way to sever this propose, which is promoting creatively evolutional progress continuously from now to human long future. Comparing all these definitions with the actual political system, Canada has the core elements of a republic, the representative democracy and the rule by law. And the monarchy is not a traditional monarchy who takes all power in hand, but only a few reserved power for the political stability in some specific situation. We conclude that we already excluded the traditional monarchy, created a new graceful sustainable political being to represent highly refined traditional virtues, which make Canadian much more peaceful in personality and nationality. To see Canadian political system in this eye, we find that our Canadian political system in this aspect takes advantage over the republic in USA-style. Although the new graceful sustainable political being still named as a monarchy, the definition is already much advanced. In the understanding, I like to call the republic in our Canadian style a graceful republic. D, Canadian Graceful Republic in the Information Era I as a person to meet the desire of my body do not ask for much, and as a human with curiosity have ask for knowledge without stop. On studying the House of Commons(9), I proposed eight reforming directions of the federal politics on the eight weaknesses I had found in my study(10). On continuing study and deep thinking(9)(2), I found that there is some practice of federal politics that is unconstitutional(11), Canada needs to reconstitute(12). (in continuing) Reference (1) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/political-parties-and-party-system-canada-history-operation-and-issues (2) http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic (3) ​http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework#provisions (4) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body (5) ​http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government (6) ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic (7) ​http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html (8) ​http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm ​(9) http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body (10) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24828-8-weaknesses-of-federal-political-system-and-reform/ (11) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24841-the-unconstitutional-political-practice-should-be-ended-soon/ (12) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24842-reconstitution-of-Canada/

Ok. Let us away from the big issues, which I will create a new topic, and now let us discuss the definition of republic. My reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic Here the definition of a republic: ​A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. According to this definition, Canada is a republic, but is very weak. The reason: unwritten constitutional conventions give "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister of Canada"​, but "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms" , and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)." My reference: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body So, you see, I consider the whole issues very seriously. I hope you too, for all about our future.

Yes, I as one of the people want them well separated. We are in the information era, we can see what the consequences of the current system might be in the future. We should try to avoid those consequences, that is why "a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process" is needed. I will create a new topic, there I will explain everything on a higher level than here, and welcome you to discuss there once I will have created.

Please read my topic carefully and my references, and then you know why I make this suggestion, and I expect to discuss with you after that.

Thanks for your patience. This is a thinking about how to deal with the issues of our Canadian political system altogether. I hope you take part in the thinking.

The original shareholder is the people. And the MPs are directors the people chose them by votes for legislative function, and the PM is the CEO the people chose her or him for executive function. The people want the two functions be well separated for the most benefits of the people as original shareholders.

Do you see the fundamental faults of the system? Do you have ever, if not never, think to improve?

A direct elected PM is important for the power of executive branch, but the current system makes the PM cribs the power from MPs, and decreases the representative function.

The Message I Recieved From Super-Nature Just Now​ By Exegesisme Just now I had a dream. In the dream, there was a baby, made his/her fingers dirty by rubbing his/her fingers on the ground, and then put his/her fingers into his/her mouth. I waked immediately, and heard sounds said "someone is eating zhun tou pi." and repeated fast a few times. According to direct exegesis of message and dream from my own future-directed super-applied-meditation, this message means that someone is cribbing my new expression in this website. If there is such a thing, I advice that person clearly gives me the credit of the new expression on this website by reference. You should know that the super-nature recorded all your behavior by micro-gravity. I announce that I keep all my legal rights of my new expressions both on this website and other situations.

The role of the PM may be unconstitutionally over-extended because the constitution makes the whole system without a clear separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

That's true. However, human insights go through the fringe before catching the core.

Would you show me any evidence and/or reason that your claim is true?

I hope a system that all parts of Canada in the system have more chances to be powerful, and makes the whole balances on a higher level. We as individuals, need not only freedom, but also resources to help us to well organize our freedom for our most achievements. Now the second part is far from enough.

Yes, you are right, but only apparently. In the deep, especially at the level of MPs, there are many benefits controlled by the party which considerably limit their choices. Therefore, these benefits should be reorganized to get rid of the hand of a party, and put in the hand that encourages the MPs as well as the people more reasonably.

Exactly. Then the issue is fixed.