people rejected the constitution

[no queenslave]

once by voting against lying pet's fraud document called Meech lake accord , and the second attempt by the conservatives. In a democracy that means we have no constitution. In our governments assuming of power after 1931 that is a form of corrupt dictatorship.

The bna act as a source of power for the governments power is demonstrated as the fraud it is by them not being willing to use it as the source of their power . In a democracy the politicians

swear to protect and obey a constitution ; not in Canada ; because Canada has no ratified constitution as accepted by the people.The politicians pledge to protect the queen as their only sorce of their power to govern; but the queen gave the people their freedom from her rule by the Statute of westminster. That makes the politicians dictators by assuming power to govern, and lies by calling their government a democracy.

[bk59]

once by voting against lying pet's fraud document called Meech lake accord , and the second attempt by the conservatives. In a democracy that means we have no constitution. In our governments assuming of power after 1931 that is a form of corrupt dictatorship.

The bna act as a source of power for the governments power is demonstrated as the fraud it is by them not being willing to use it as the source of their power . In a democracy the politicians

swear to protect and obey a constitution ; not in Canada ; because Canada has no ratified constitution as accepted by the people.The politicians pledge to protect the queen as their only sorce of their power to govern; but the queen gave the people their freedom from her rule by the Statute of westminster. That makes the politicians dictators by assuming power to govern, and lies by calling their government a democracy.

At no time did anyone reject the constitution in force. Rejecting two proposed amendments is not the same as rejecting what was already there.

The BNA Act is the large part of the Canadian constitution. It is "the source of their power" so to speak. The Statute of Westminster meant that the UK Parliament no longer passed laws for Canada. Likewise, Canadian laws could no longer be held invalid simply because they conflicted with UK laws. This did not erase all of the laws that previously existed in Canada - including the BNA Act.

Canadians elect their MPs. Anyone can run as an MP. This makes us a democracy. We're not perfect, but we are certainly not a dictatorship.

[Leafless]

Canadians elect their MPs. Anyone can run as an MP. This makes us a democracy. We're not perfect, but we are certainly not a dictatorship.

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy.

In Canada we have a 'liberal democracy that does not RESPECT majority rule except when electing representatives that do not in any way have an honourable system that represents the issues of the electorate. A liberal democracy is merely a decoration over an 'oligarchy' which is is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers).

Your damn RIGHT were not perfect and are much closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

[no queenslave]

At no time did anyone reject the constitution in force. Rejecting two proposed amendments is not the same as rejecting what was already there.

The BNA Act is the large part of the Canadian constitution. It is "the source of their power" so to speak. The Statute of Westminster meant that the UK Parliament no longer passed laws for Canada. Likewise, Canadian laws could no longer be held invalid simply because they conflicted with UK laws. This did not erase all of the laws that previously existed in Canada - including the BNA Act.

Canadians elect their MPs. Anyone can run as an MP. This makes us a democracy. We're not perfect, but we are certainly not a dictatorship.

Does the U.S. still have the same constitution it had befor they declared their independence-NO.

When the provinces and people were given their independence and sovereignty ; they legally no longer were governed by the B.N.A.Act. just like the Americans.The politicians just assumed power and kept power just like any other dictatorship does. How many people ran in any other dictatorship or comunist government; running does not create a democracy.

[no queenslave]

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy.

In Canada we have a 'liberal democracy that does not RESPECT majority rule except when electing representatives that do not in any way have an honourable system that represents the issues of the electorate. A liberal democracy is merely a decoration over an 'oligarchy' which is is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers).

Your damn RIGHT were not perfect and are much closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

legal definition of democracy-the form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of the free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation as distinguished from a monarchy. The Canadian people were never given a chance to use their sovereignty and independence; because the political people in power did not permit or facilitate it.

If you think the B.N.A.Act continues then so does the monarchy and canada as a colony.

You can not have both at the same time.Which do you want? what you have now is massive corruption in the courts and political system.

[Leafless]

If you think the B.N.A.Act continues then so does the monarchy and canada as a colony.

With the passage of the Statute of Westminster, Canada ceased to be a colony of Britain: She was a proper country in her own right. In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and federal governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the Constitution home. The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made several key provisions:

British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the Dominions.

Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws.

British law no longer applied to the Dominions.

You can not have both at the same time.Which do you want? what you have now is massive corruption in the courts and political system.

I agree and the contributing factor to that was the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation and implementation of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' a purely dictatorial piece of legislation created by politicians and ratified by politicians in the spirit of British law.

So what do you propose to do?

[jbg]

once by voting against lying pet's fraud document called Meech lake accord , and the second attempt by the conservatives. In a democracy that means we have no constitution. In our governments assuming of power after 1931 that is a form of corrupt dictatorship.

I guess it will take a Yank ignorant about Canada to set you straight. Meech Lake was a Mulroney-era document, and vitriolically opposed by Trudeau. Trudeau foisted the Charter of No Rights and Special Pleadings on Canada, but there was little public opposition. The US Constitution was never ratified by the people and it's as legitmate as it comes.

The bna act as a source of power for the governments power is demonstrated as the fraud it is by them not being willing to use it as the source of their power . In a democracy the politicians

swear to protect and obey a constitution ; not in Canada ; because Canada has no ratified constitution as accepted by the people.The politicians pledge to protect the queen as their only sorce of their power to govern; but the queen gave the people their freedom from her rule by the Statute of westminster. That makes the politicians dictators by assuming power to govern, and lies by calling their government a democracy.

The rest of this post is meaningless diatribe.

[Leafless]

Trudeau foisted the Charter of No Rights and Special Pleadings on Canada, but there was little public opposition. The US Constitution was never ratified by the people and it's as legitmate as it comes.

Trudeau made a main issue over the reason for the Charter as a reason to quell Quebec's 'Quiet Revolution'.

But I think this was all part of Trudeau's plan to forcefully advance Quebec's national interest at the expense of Canada since not much was ever mentioned during that revolution relating to advancing Quebec's political demands on the rest of Canada.

[jbg]

Trudeau made a main issue over the reason for the Charter as a reason to quell Quebec's 'Quiet Revolution'.

But I think this was all part of Trudeau's plan to forcefully advance Quebec's national interest at the expense of Canada since not much was ever mentioned during that revolution relating to advancing Quebec's political demands on the rest of Canada.

And to add insult to injury Quebec didn't sign on the "night of long knives".

[no queenslave]

With the passage of the Statute of Westminster, Canada ceased to be a colony of Britain: She was a proper country in her own right. In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and federal governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the Constitution home. The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made several key provisions:

British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the Dominions.

Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws.

British law no longer applied to the Dominions.

I agree and the contributing factor to that was the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation and implementation of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' a purely dictatorial piece of legislation created by politicians and ratified by politicians in the spirit of British law.

So what do you propose to do? Quote

What other country used the REPATRIATION method as an excuse for anything they did?

How can you have a sovereign independent country with some other counties bill used as your constitution? Dominions could make their own laws Including a constitution.Only in Canada are the people so indoctrinated that most believe the lies politicians tell you.Does the U.S. still use a british bill as their constitution-No - why not: because they got their independence; and understand what independence is. No British law no longer applied including the B.N.A.Act; but you still do not want to understand that fact, and want think the B.N.A.Act law still applied. If the B.N.A.act still applied then so did all other british laws.Where did the government get any power to give you the charter of rights and freedoms?In a democrasy the people give the government power by a constitution; the only government that can say they gave you freedoms is one that you are a slave of to start with.

[timmtc]

So, are you saying that the B.N.A. act does not apply in Canada anymore, because it is a product of the UK?

[no queenslave]

I guess it will take a Yank ignorant about Canada to set you straight. Meech Lake was a Mulroney-era document, and vitriolically opposed by Trudeau. Trudeau foisted the Charter of No Rights and Special Pleadings on Canada, but there was little public opposition. The US Constitution was never ratified by the people and it's as legitmate as it comes.

The rest of this post is meaningless diatribe.

Only to someone who is indoctrinated and has no understanding of the Canadian history and political lies ; and thinke they know something, when all they know is propaganda.

If their was little public opposition after all the media and government money then why was it not passed?Just another lie.

Edited October 29, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

So, are you saying that the B.N.A. act does not apply in Canada anymore, because it is a product of the UK?

Does it apply to the U.S. ; why not?If the B.N.A.Act was to be a constitution for Canada then the name would of been the Constitution of Canada.It was just a guide for colonial rulers ruling the united colony of Canada , with the fraud of getting you to think it was something else.

[timmtc]

I'm not sure why you are bringing the United States into the arguement. Nevertheless, there also was the Constitution act 1867 and then the Constitution act 1982. The B.N.A act is irrelevant, the country is guided by the 1867 Contistution Act, and further the schedule B 1982 Constitution act.

The B.N.A act isn't even mentioned in the list of Canadian statutes (from the justice website).

[bush_cheney2004]

Does it apply to the U.S. ; why not?If the B.N.A.Act was to be a constitution for Canada then the name would of been the Constitution of Canada.It was just a guide for colonial rulers ruling the united colony of Canada , with the fraud of getting you to think it was something else.

No, the BNA Act of 1867, and many subsequent "Acts" did/do not apply to the United States, as it was a sovereign state long before that. My yankee understanding is that Canada was not sovereign until 1931 (Westminster), with some legacy royal red tape (e.g. "royal affirmation").

You can well imagine why the rebel yankees booted the king in the ass years before!

[Leafless]

What other country used the REPATRIATION method as an excuse for anything they did?

How can you have a sovereign independent country with some other counties bill used as your constitution? Dominions could make their own laws Including a constitution.Only in Canada are the people so indoctrinated that most believe the lies politicians tell you.Does the U.S. still use a british bill as their constitution-No - why not: because they got their independence; and understand what independence is. No British law no longer applied including the B.N.A.Act; but you still do not want to understand that fact, and want think the B.N.A.Act law still applied. If the B.N.A.act still applied then so did all other british laws.Where did the government get any power to give you the charter of rights and freedoms?In a democrasy the people give the government power by a constitution; the only government that can say they gave you freedoms is one that you are a slave of to start with.

Canada wanted it seems a constitution similar to the British model and the repatriation method was used by traitorous politicians who were basically continuing the war of 'the Plains of Abraham' for political power and dominance of Canada basically involving English and French Canada, under the guise of:

For the political ideology that favours Quebec remaining within the Canadian federation rather than pursuing independence, see Quebec federalist ideology.

And to avoid possible conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867

[no queenslave]

No, the BNA Act of 1867, and many subsequent "Acts" did/do not apply to the United States, as it was a sovereign state long before that. My yankee understanding is that Canada was not sovereign until 1931 (Westminster), with some legacy royal red tape (e.g. "royal affirmation").

You can well imagine why the rebel yankees booted the king in the ass years before!

And how did the united States get their independence sovereignty , and from who?.Did they keep any former government laws or create a constitution of their own?Why don't you think Canadians can't do the same thing but still have to keep an old british law- B.N.A.act.

[no queenslave]

Canada wanted it seems a constitution similar to the British model and the repatriation method was used by traitorous politicians who were basically continuing the war of 'the Plains of Abraham' for political power and dominance of Canada basically involving English and French Canada, under the guise of:

And to avoid possible conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867

wikipedia is not even recognized as a source of facts for university papers.

Saying what happen from the governments point of view as though it was legal is propaganda.

[no queenslave]

I'm not sure why you are bringing the United States into the arguement. Nevertheless, there also was the Constitution act 1867 and then the Constitution act 1982. The B.N.A act is irrelevant, the country is guided by the 1867 Contistution Act, and further the schedule B 1982 Constitution act.

The B.N.A act isn't even mentioned in the list of Canadian statutes (from the justice website).

If the B.N.A.act is irrelevant then you have no other constitutional act; but you claim to so post it, 1867.

Who controlled the United States before their independence? That is why.

[bush_cheney2004]

And how did the united States get their independence sovereignty , and from who?.Did they keep any former government laws or create a constitution of their own?Why don't you think Canadians can't do the same thing but still have to keep an old british law- B.N.A.act.

How? The very rude Yankee colonists conspired to declare independence from the throne and start a WAR to make it stick....loyalists fled to Canada to remain "queenslaves". However, please note that the Americans did not have a constitution until several years later, and certain elements of British common law were retained. The only remnant of a king can be found at a well known fast food restaurant.

Canada did not do the same thing partly because it didn't have/want to, and there was this pesky problem of how to get Quebec on side, which persists to this day.

Edited October 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[no queenslave]

How? The very rude Yankee colonists conspired to declare independence from the throne and start a WAR to make it stick....loyalists fled to Canada to remain "queenslaves". However, please note that the Americans did not have a constitution until several years later, and certain elements of British common law were retained. The only remnant of a king can be found at a well known fast food restaurant.

Canada did not do the same thing partly because it didn't have/want to, and there was this pesky problem of how to get Quebec on side, which persists to this day.

Just because you had to fight for your independence and ours was supposed given to us ;independence is the same, no more British control, and that includes the B.N.A.Act.

Just because the politicians did not want to give up control and did not want the people to change the powers of the government the people were not told of their sovereignty.

If i steal something is it mine? The government stole power to govern.

The Canadian colonies wanted a sovereign country as was demonstrated by the Quebec resolutions, but the British could not do this as they were in negotiations with the U.S. and wanted to use the colonies as part of their settlement.; if Canada was sovereign they could not do this.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The Canadian colonies wanted a sovereign country as was demonstrated by the Quebec resolutions, but the British could not do this as they were in negotiations with the U.S. and wanted to use the colonies as part of their settlement.; if Canada was sovereign they could not do this.

Yes...it is certainly true that Great Britain sold Canada down the river in an attempt to get along with those violent Yankee bastards. Jay Treaty, southern Alaska, Oregon Treaty, military bases in non-Canada for some rusty old destroyers....etc., etc.

But again, Canada was not sovereign until 1931 IIRC.

[jbg]

Just because you had to fight for your independence and ours was supposed given to us ;independence is the same, no more British control, and that includes the B.N.A.Act.

Just because the politicians did not want to give up control and did not want the people to change the powers of the government the people were not told of their sovereignty.

If i steal something is it mine? The government stole power to govern.

The Canadian colonies wanted a sovereign country as was demonstrated by the Quebec resolutions, but the British could not do this as they were in negotiations with the U.S. and wanted to use the colonies as part of their settlement.; if Canada was sovereign they could not do this.

How about a more likely explanation that Britain was, in 1867, not wealthy enough to fight a war with the US over British North America's trading with the US confederacy? Yes, I know that the civil war had ended two years earlier, but the wheels had been set in motion and, unlike a TV show, no one knew when the war was going to end. Also, isn't it possible that, having fought the costly Revolutionary War from 1774-82 that they didn't want an instant replay, and instead negotiated a solution that would give their commercial and military interests some access, in return for self-rule?

It's hard arguing with someone that doesn't know their history, i.e. misplaces the Meech Lake Accords with Trudeau.

[g_bambino]

once by voting against lying pet's fraud document called Meech lake accord , and the second attempt by the conservatives. In a democracy that means we have no constitution. In our governments assuming of power after 1931 that is a form of corrupt dictatorship.

The bna act as a source of power for the governments power is demonstrated as the fraud it is by them not being willing to use it as the source of their power . In a democracy the politicians

swear to protect and obey a constitution ; not in Canada ; because Canada has no ratified constitution as accepted by the people.The politicians pledge to protect the queen as their only sorce of their power to govern; but the queen gave the people their freedom from her rule by the Statute of westminster. That makes the politicians dictators by assuming power to govern, and lies by calling their government a democracy.

1) The Meech Lake Accord was a project of Brian Mulroney, not Pierre Trudeau.

2) Canada's present constitution is a collection of documents, including both the Statute of Westminster and British North America Act, going back to at least the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as well as various conventions.

3) The Statute of Westminster was granter Royal Assent in 1931; King George V was on the throne, not a queen of any kind.

4) The Statute of Westminster did not give the people freedom from the rule of the sovereign; it created out of one imperial crown multiple separate crowns worn by a single monarch; in essence, it created a series of independent kingdoms in personal union.

5) By the constitution, Queen Elizabeth II is the legitimate sovereign of Canada; executive authority continues to be vested in her. Hence, politicians swear allegiance to her so as to a) publicly recognize the source of authority in Canada, and complete a reciprocal verbal contract with the monarch regarding the exercise of power.

I doubt, however, these finer points of history and constitutional structure will mean much to you.

[Leafless]

wikipedia is not even recognized as a source of facts for university papers.

Saying what happen from the governments point of view as though it was legal is propaganda.

I consider my opinion more politically valuable than Wikipedia's quote but that one quote I happen to agree with.

Still it is better than what you quote---ZILCH.

Regardless queenslave, you are not a slave to the Queen, but in reality a slave to corrupt, traitorous politicians stemming from Quebec, that voided any possibility of Canada gaining its true independence with the help unfortunately of English Canada who obviously lacked the desire to fight for the independence of Canada.