Moonbox

The Monarchy believes it. It's on their own official website. If you're correct, then absolute power is vested in a dumb monarch who doesn't even know she actually has that power and thus it doesn't even matter. Regardless, you have no facts to back up that it's a 'myth', and I have direct quotation from the Queen of Canada's own website stating it is NOT a myth. Keep it up. Show everyone here how many more dumb things you can say.

It's not the system that's to blame. The system would work perfectly if people weren't stupid and apathetic about it. That's the whole reason the system works the way it does now. People are too dumb and too lazy to actually learn about individual candidates stand for and instead base their opinions on two minute commercials (from the parties themselves) while they're on the couch getting fat watching Survivor or something stupid like that.

It's because the VAST majority of Canadians don't share the views of the tiny minority that makes a career of complaining and protesting. Most protests are regarded with about as much respect as the drunks downtown in whatever city you live in. They're the unsuccessful and indignant part of society who blames everyone else for their failures. We don't listen to them because of who they are: Generally speaking...big losers.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out A myth? Hmm... As in all her realms, The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from her ministers, and has face-to-face audiences with them where possible http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx If it's a myth, then it's one the Queen is also unaware of. Keep digging that hole. The more you talk the dumber you look.

Your idiocy is highlighted in bold. It warrants absolutely no comment and the rest of the forum can judge it for what it is. No. The Supreme Court didn't order the government to do anything. It was a wrist-slap. The Crown as an institution holds all the power. It gains its power and authority from the support of the people. Without the support of the Canadian people, the Crown has no legitimacy whatsoever. "The Crown is the institution that represents the power of the people above government and political parties." http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=635,617,534,206,Documents&MediaID=752&Filename=2004Manual.pdf Your ability to think critically, I think, will never be corrected.

I am? Really? Let's examine your next sentence.... Oops. You f'd up again. You're talking about precedence. Precedence, I'll grant, is at least part of legal theory, but it's still pretty clear you don't understand jurisprudence. If you look at the size and nature of the settlements made thus far, take that as your precendence (not jurisprudence ) for what future settlements will look like. My god you're all over the place. What's your point? I understand what the Crown is. Where we differ is on how the government and court systems work. We seem to have different opinions on our understanding of who ACTUALLY holds power in Canada. It's not the Queen, or the Governor General. It's the PEOPLE of Canada who determine its fate. While the Queen does hold symbolic reserve powers, if the people, parliament and Senate of Canada passed a bill and the GG or Queen didn't consent, we'd write her out of the constitution. She knows this, and thus has no reason or ability to interfere.

Yeah that's pretty much exactly right. The apathy, ignorance and laziness of the average voter turns politics into a pageant and media circus.

Oh good for you! You can look up a definition in the dictionary! Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you understand it. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Having the definition of the world in your hand provides you with no better of an understanding than would having the definition of "particle physics". You don't seem to have even a BASIC understanding of how a legal system works and your critical thinking skills suffer even worse. I provided you with examples of how jurisprudence defeated your arguments and how you don't even know what it means. Your response was a dictionary definition. Oh my..... Your naivety on this issue is getting pretty tiresome. You and I have had this argument on a number of occasions. I understand what the Crown is. It's not a difficult concept, and I don't need you to explain it again. The Queen's power, just like the GG's, is almost entirely symbolic. The only time she has ANY authority whatsoever is in cases where you might have a hung parliament or something rare and obscure like that. As I mentioned before, NONE of her ACTUAL powers are relevant to our argument here. She has NO power to enact legislation nor can she in any way affect the Canadian Court system. If she tried to, she would indeed be laughed off the continent. We'd write her out of the Constitution so fast you'd barely know what happened.

No smallc, I'm not. The Queen has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enact, retract or enforce legislation in Canada. If she tried, the whole country would laugh. Other than ceremonial duties and VERY unusual circumstances where Reserve Powers may be warranted, she has absolutely no power at all, and certainly none in the context of this argument.

That's a pretty good argument I think.

Reading about treaties and understanding jurisprudence are two VERY different things. You may have read the treaties, but you have no idea how to interpret them in the context of law. You've used the word, 'jurisprudence' in a number of threads on this forum but you've made it VERY clear you don't know what the word means. I don't expect you to understand what legal realism is (you don't seem to understand anything else about the law) but the basic premise is that 'law' is determined by what judges etc do with it. Natural law, another pillar of jurisprudence, suggests that there are practical limits to any legislation. This is the key to our entire legal system. The law is interpreted in so far as it is reasonable. A really good example of Natural Law is Section 1 of the Charter: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. You and I have already been over this. It's the first Section of the Charter for a reason. "Rights" will only be guaranteed and unpheld in so much as they are reasonable. If we're to study jurisprudence,(or Natural Law) and Section 1 of the Charter, your beloved Section 25 actually has some limitations. Imagine that! I know from previous discussions that you've decided Section 25 is the most important and most unmalleable Section of the entire Charter (that's why it's #25 right?) but that's based more on your dreams and desires than any basis of 'jurisprudence' . The agreement you speak of in this thread was made 300 years ago by the English Crown. This was generations and generations before Canada even became a country. The power of the English crown these days is ENTIRELY symbolic in Canada and it has absolutely no influence on Canada's repatriated constitution. It's a myth that what the Queen says has any impact on Canadian law these days. She's a figurehead and she knows it. Nobody is arguing that. Can you even read? We're arguing that the settlements YOU say are inevitable are pipedreams. Billions in settlements will be made (over decades) in order to appease First Nations, but they'll never get the fairytale settlements you dream about. The fact that hundreds of millions worth of settlements get awarded yearly DOES NOT provide any reasonable support for your claims of $100's of billions of dollars. If anything, it suggests that those are the type of settlements we can continue to expect. only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society Are you aware that the declaration was not legally binding, which means it's purely symbolic and has no teeth whatsoever? Was there any backlash (other than from Hugo) internationally against Canada and the US for not signing? No? Okay well that kind of goes to show you how much interest the international community takes in such affairs. Keep proving my points please. That's what YOU would like to think. There is no evidence that these are happening nor any precedence for such negotiations. Such demands are so unreasonable that they would fall under Section 1 of the Charter and so be dismissed. Instead, aboriginals in Canada will receive such settlements as are deemed FAIR to both parties (First Nations and Canadians as well) which will NOT result in making every individual First Nations inhabitant instantly wealthy and impoverishing tens of millions of Canadians at the same time. Sure. They have to be settled. Eventually...as reasonable... I don't even think you know what a settlement is. Do you understand the difference between judgement and settlement? Maybe look that up.

You keep saying that, but the reality of the situation is that the agreements you speak of (and regularly misquote and misrepresent) were made hundreds of years ago by what is now essentially a foreign monarch with little to no influence on Canadian politics today. What you're essentially saying is that the Canadian court system (composed of Canadians) will award settlements to a tiny minority that will bankrupt the country and everyone in it. What's more is that this is all based on agreements made with a foreign government. There isn't a court in the world that would do what you're saying they will. International history would support my claim. Perhaps you simply don't understand how common law works, or you've never taken an interest or been challanged with real critical thinking, but your entire premise is preposterous. The only questions I need to ask you are: Why? Why would the Canadian Court System bankrupt itself and the rest of Canada to support 200 year old claims made by tiny minorities (and based on 200+ year old treaties made before Canada was even a country)? Who is going to enforce such settlements? We have a long history of the international community not getting involved in such affairs. So who will enforce it? Canadians are going to enforce bankrupting themselves upon themselves? The more you think about it the more hysterical your claims get. The only other thing I'll add, and I'll italicize it and put it in bold for you is this: I am not saying that Six Nations etc aren't owed SOMETHING. They probably are and they're certain to be awarded further settlements. Settlements in the trillion dollar area, or even tens of billions, however, will only happen in your dreams. They won't happen because it doesn't make sense to bankrupt tens of millions for the benefit of a tiny minority, and because nobody will enforce such settlements anyways. A court of law, if nothing else, does what makes sense. It exercises a much more sane and cogent sort of thinking than what you're clearly used to and it will not give you what you want simply because YOU think it should.

I don't really see any problem with this. Let them work if they want to.

It's really a moot point. If sovereignty is over people, and those people occupy the land, it's pretty much the same thing.

In this I disagree. The Reform knew that they were totally unpalatable in the East and, if anything, they've shown themselves to be pragmatic. Knowing that Ontario would never accept a bunch of wacko Bible-thumpers, they'll moderate and do what they can to keep the Liberals from forming a government again.

charter.rights has only acknowledges/accepts things that support his/her opinions. Don't bother.

Big whoopy. Reporters travel on passenger planes as far as I'm aware of. Refrigeration equipment doesn't generally travel on passenger cabins...maybe I'm wrong I dunno.

Look at the NDP's results in the last few provincial elections. Rae alienated the left, right and centre when he was premier. He overspent and ran the biggest deficits Ontario has ever seen. At the same time, he pissed off the unions and lost the NDP's traditional base as well. I've met the man in person and he's VERY intelligent and VERY personable, but he has a terrible legacy and the CPC would have the easy time in the world turning Ontario against him. His record speaks to his politics.

He'd be even worse than Iggy. The man is like acid on the lips of most people in Ontario. He's the worst premier we've ever had.

Geoffrey seems to know more about this sort of thing than I do but I can't really see what other currency would take top spot over the US. The Euro region's debt problems are every bit if not bigger than the US, the British are no better. Concerns that the Chinese manipulate their currency will probably rule it out as the #1 contender and as far as the Yen is concerned..well I actually don't know much about it but I doubt it.

I think that's no secret August.

Is any of this confidence material though, to be included in a budget bill?

Land claims are being settled. I know it. I agreed with you. The proof for you is there, however. Add up ALL of the land claim settlements in the last decade, however, and then tell me how long it would take at the current pace to reach $1 trillion in settlements. You have not once, in the last several months, provided anything even CLOSE to proof that the Supreme Court supports the claim from First Nations in anywhere NEAR the area of $1 trillion. All you've done is show us examples of small settlements being made here and there from time to time. As for the sulking, I know for a fact that what you're saying is pure balogna so it doesn't upset me one bit. The worst you're going to get from me is sneering contempt and a total lack of respect for your clownschool claims and opinions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-campaign-chief-throws-down-fall-election-gauntlet/article1633200/ They're going to keep trying and trying until they get the majority. If it wasn't for Ignatief being such an unprincipled joke, I would say it's about time we got Harper out of office. The clauses the Conservatives are trying to include the budget bill are as follows: open overseas mail delivery to privatization, weaken environmental assessment, and facilitate the selloff of power division of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd I can't see why any of them need to be in the budget and frankly I'm pretty appalled that the Conservatives would want to turn this into a confidence motion. Here's why we need a Senate it seems.

Wouldn't it be so much easier to have you explain what the Governor General actually DOES??? Your response would be an answer to your own question.