people rejected the constitution

[no queenslave]

You didn't address any of my points. So, again:

Do you expect 32 million people to get together and write a constitution? That's what we elect representatives to the federal and provincial legislatures for, who then support, or don't support, a group of ministers appointed to minister the Queen, or Governor General, on how to exercise the Crown's powers.

One wonders how you'd handle things. A constitution is "drafted and ratified" by the sovereign, independent people of Canada (however that would happen). A new immigrant is granted Canadian citizenship. A child is born in Canada. Neither of them "drafted and ratified" the constitution they now live under. Are they then slaves to the rest of the Canadian populace? Ponder on that for a while.

(PS- there's no legal definition of democracy. In fact, there's no one definition at all.)

I presume you have never heard of a law dictionary.That is where i got the legal definition from.Where do you get your facts from; the dictatorship government?.It only takes a small number of people to start the process of writing a constitution proposal(.; was the answer to your question-" Do you expect 32 million people to get together and write a constitution" Are you arguing the 2 attempts by the federal government were not valid because you and 31 million people did not write it ?); such as

1. The people are sovereign and they only give the government the following powers---

2. Everyone is innocent until proved guilty in a fair trial.

3 . personal direct taxes is a form of slavery and the government does not have the power of personal direct taxation in any form.i

4 -Or whatever other power you think the government should or should not have.

Once enough people have agreed on the text of a constitutional document ; it is put to a vote of the people just like the Charlottetown accord or the Quebec sepparation referendum was.

You still don't understand what a democracy is ; it is not a momarchy ruled from the top down but a government given its powers from the people.

Write your M.P.to explain to you when they will allow the people to exercise their powers given to them by the Statute of Westminster. Or don't you think he or she or it is capable ?

Edited October 30, 2007 by no queenslave

[g_bambino]

I presume you have never heard of a law dictionary.That is where i got the legal definition from.Where do you get your facts from; the dictatorship government?.It only takes a small number of people to start the process of writing a constitution proposal. It can be done in a website, where interested people can put forward what they want in a constitution... Once enough people have agreed on the text of a constitutional document ; it is put to a vote of the people just like the Charlottetown accord or the Quebec sepparation referendum was.

I didn't ask for a definition of democracy; I don't need one.

I'll take it from your "internet" proposal that you do indeed think 32 million people can collectively write a constitution. Skipping over the lunacy of that proposal, you still didn't address my questions about what would follow the ratification of such a document (I imagine it would need 32 million signatures on it):

After the new constitution is "drafted and ratified" by the sovereign, independent people of Canada a new immigrant is granted Canadian citizenship and a child is born in Canada. Neither of them "drafted and ratified" the constitution they now live under. Are they then slaves to the rest of the Canadian populace?

[no queenslave]

I didn't ask for a definition of democracy; I don't need one.

I'll take it from your "internet" proposal that you do indeed think 32 million people can collectively write a constitution. Skipping over the lunacy of that proposal, you still didn't address my questions about what would follow the ratification of such a document (I imagine it would need 32 million signatures on it):

After the new constitution is "drafted and ratified" by the sovereign, independent people of Canada a new immigrant is granted Canadian citizenship and a child is born in Canada. Neither of them "drafted and ratified" the constitution they now live under. Are they then slaves to the rest of the Canadian populace?

you have just demonstrated something else you thought you didn't need .

[g_bambino]

you have just demonstrated something else you thought you didn't need .

Apparantly you can't answer my question. As I suspected.

[no queenslave]

Apparantly you can't answer my question. As I suspected.

I have answered your question; you just did not understand that.

[g_bambino]

I have answered your question; you just did not understand that.

I have you question did not answer what you understand.

[no queenslave]

I have you question did not answer what you understand.

read post 51

[g_bambino]

read post 51

Purple!

[no queenslave]

and nobody has posted any facts that dispute the fact canadians rejected the constitution twice.

[jbg]

read post 51

Purple!

Quite the adult exchange of views, rbacon.

[jbg]

and nobody has posted any facts that dispute the fact canadians rejected the constitution twice.

No, the Canadian people rejected Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both sellouts by soft separatist Mulroney to Quebec.

[jbg]

do you understand this-http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm-?

I have just tried to read and understand it. Maybe I'm too stupid to, or maybe, given my Yank heritage, I do not know enough about Canada. The following portion, however, stands out as raising some very serious questions:

A. P. Newton, in his book entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions," at page 5 says:

“A federal state is a perpetual union of several sovereign states based first upon a treaty between those states or upon some historical status common to them all, and secondly upon a federal constitution accepted by their citizens.â€

Two points stand out prominently in these definitions. The first is that the states which form the union must be sovereign, free and independent before they federate; the second, that the federal constitution which forms the basis of the union must be accepted by the citizens of the federating states.

Does that mean that the US is undemocratic, and only AU is "democratic"? There is no "treaty" between the original 13 states, and there was never a popular vote on the Constitution. The Constitution was patched together by people representing the interests of businessmen who could not do business amid the atmosphere of chaos, debt forgiveness, interstate trade barriers and hyperinflation. The expression "as worthless as a Continental" referred to the revolutionary currency.

Other portions of Kuhl are simply eyestraining babble.

[g_bambino]

Quite the adult exchange of views, rbacon.

I apologise for my part in the degeneration. I just thought I'd debate queenie on his/her level.

[jbg]

I apologise for my part in the degeneration. I just thought I'd debate queenie on his/her level.

Having a rational discussion with Queenie/Rbacon is never easy. I applaud you for keeping your cool for so long.

[no queenslave]

Having a rational discussion with Queenie/Rbacon is never easy. I applaud you for keeping your cool for so long.

to bad you did't do the same.You posted the states are in the same position- men with money run your country and you have no say and do nothing about it.

[jbg]

You posted the states are in the same position- men with money run your country and you have no say and do nothing about it.

Having a Constitution with a flawed origin does not make us slaves, nor does it make you a slave. Perhaps funny farm mental health facility restrictions make you feel subservient.

[Peter F]

A. P. Newton, in his book entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions," at page 5 says:

“A federal state is a perpetual union of several sovereign states based first upon a treaty between those states or upon some historical status common to them all, and secondly upon a federal constitution accepted by their citizens.â€

Two points stand out prominently in these definitions. The first is that the states which form the union must be sovereign, free and independent before they federate; the second, that the federal constitution which forms the basis of the union must be accepted by the citizens of the federating states.

Its funny, he quotes AP Newton, then completely ignores "or upon some historical status common to them all,..."

So, contrary to Kuhl, no soveriegnty is required to enter into confederation.

[jbg]

What has god got to do with it? The sovereign independent people of Canada have never drafted and ratified a constitution giving the federal government any of their powers.

Trudeau acted no different than Saddam, and should of met the same justice.

Since the people in a democracy is the source of all government power; and the people of Canada never ratified any constitution or amended constitution the government has no power other than assumed power like any other dictator. The politicians in Canada get their power from the queen, not the people. Slaves of the queen.

The Clarity Act is not apart of the Constitution at all and can and will be ignored by any Province that wishes to withdraw from the Confederation......Under the 1982 Constitution that some here don't seem to have read, if Alberta calls a referendum of it's citizen's on a constitutional matter, the constitution says that Ottawa must negotiate......UEL's are legal all over the world......Alberta obtained full and complete ownership of all land trees grass and water and oil in 1930 with a Constitutional Amendment......Fort McMurray can't leave Alberta because it is a town, and not a Sovereign State like Alberta.....Each Province already has a Parliament, a Head of State and an democratically elected Prime Minister in Alberta that would be Ed Stelmach now.....If the majority of Albertan's decide to leave TROC can do nothing except wring their little hands stamp their little feet and knash their gums......Like some are doing right now......

Someone should introduce these kindred spirits to each other, perhaps for coffee. I think they'd get along splendidly.

[bk59]

I just find it amusing that queenslave starts up numerous threads on the same topics and has yet to make any sense in any of them. What little "facts" are quoted are either distorted (read completely wrong) interpretations of legislation and cases, or they are random links that could best be described as confused ramblings.

[no queenslave]

I just find it amusing that queenslave starts up numerous threads on the same topics and has yet to make any sense in any of them. What little "facts" are quoted are either distorted (read completely wrong) interpretations of legislation and cases, or they are random links that could best be described as confused ramblings.

Well spoken it is confusing to you; but not to anyone who understands the difference between government propaganda and common knowledge of the facts.

Now that you informed us you are incapable of understanding facts i post , go bug someone else with your ramblings.write your M.P. for better instructions.

[no queenslave]

Its funny, he quotes AP Newton, then completely ignores "or upon some historical status common to them all,..."

So, contrary to Kuhl, no soveriegnty is required to enter into confederation.

reread it is not contrary".several sovereign states".

[bk59]

Well spoken it is confusing to you; but not to anyone who understands the difference between government propaganda and common knowledge of the facts.

See, this is why you need to read more carefully. I did not say that I was confused. I said that the links you post are confused. As in those links contradict themselves, selectively choose some facts while ignoring others, and misinterpret a number of things.

Now that you informed us you are incapable of understanding facts i post , go bug someone else with your ramblings.write your M.P. for better instructions.

I don't think that you have posted a single fact in any of your posts that I have read. Ramblings, yes. Misinterpretations, yes. Nonsense... definitely yes. But few, if any, facts.

[jbg]

Well spoken it is confusing to you; but not to anyone who understands the difference between government propaganda and common knowledge of the facts.

That's a matter of opinion.

By the way, are you and rbacon acquainted with each other, either electronically or in the real world? You're a great dynamic duo.

[Leafless]

Our current constitution was revised and based on the BNA Act, an act of the Imperial Parliament and never ratified has being accepted by the people of Canada.

Today’s problems (federal invasion of provincial jurisdiction) are largely the result of the central government’s violation and disregard of the BNA Act as our Constitution, and the widespread ignorance of our provincial governments and our citizenry at large regarding our rights, our powers and responsibilities outlined in the Act.

The only real constitution Canada has is the Magna Carta and our 'associated common law heritage' and even beyond to the days of the Bible.

The rights and freedoms the Charter claims to give Canadians are rights and freedoms we’ve enjoyed for centuries before Mr. Trudeau and his Charter came along. We enjoyed them as part of our English Common-Law heritage, secured by long practise and precedent of our forefathers for countless generations.

However, the Trudeau charter claims to give these rights from the state, a system generally known as the Napoleonic Code, under which the only rights a citizen enjoys are those dispensed by the state. But what the state gives, the state can take away! Thus, such a ‘right’ is little more than a ‘license,’ held at the state’s pleasure, rather than an inalienable fundamental, non-revocable human right.

The Charter undermines the fundamental right of Equality before the Law. Its Section 15(2) says, in effect, all are equal before the law, but some are more equal, than others! By institutionalizing special ‘affirmative action’ status and ‘rights’ for certain minority groups, the Charter thereby relegates all other Canadians to second-class status and negates the great principle of Equality before the Law. That’s not acceptable in a free and responsible Common-Law country.

It is obvious we are not a country based on 'Common Law ' and are an oppressed people controlled by the elite and corrupt politicians forming a dictatorship.

[M.Dancer]

However, the Trudeau charter claims to give these rights from the state, a system generally known as the Napoleonic Code.........

.

NApolean never codified any laws in Canada .....that is a myth. In the rest of Canada it is called common law, in Quebec it is called Civil Law.