people rejected the constitution

[bk59]

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.

Which problems are you speaking of?

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.

Common law can be overwritten with regular statutes. Not only that, but the common law did not give such precise meanings to at least some of the rights in the Charter. By having those rights now in the Constitution it is much harder to violate them. This is better than having unwritten rights, or rights written into a normal statute.

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 state can't take those rights away without now changing the Constitution. This is much harder than what they had to do previously. (And yes, before the Charter they could still take those rights away.)

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.

Section 15(2) does not allow you to discriminate against others. It does not relegate people to second class status. But it does clarify that the government is allowed to help disadvantaged people.

[Leafless]

.

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.

Common Law embodies a heritage of freedom.

Code Napoleonic embodies a heritage of state dictatorship, the route Trudeau choose for Canada.

[Leafless]

Which problems are you speaking of?['quote]

Ottawa, in 1917, passed the Income War Tax Act, by which the central government ‘borrowed’ the provinces’ exclusive constitutional right to levy direct taxation. This invasion of provincial jurisdiction was to meet the financial exigencies of wartime and to end within 24 to 36 months.

This ‘borrowing’ or exchanging of jurisdiction would certainly have been unconstitutional in peacetime without the sanction of a War-Measures-type Act. However, to this day Ottawa has not surrendered the income-tax jurisdiction it borrowed from the provinces 83 years ago!

Direct taxation (income tax), as outlined in Sections 92, 92A and 93 of the Act belonged under the jurisdiction of the provinces and NOT the federal government. It created its own federal bureacacy at the expense of the provinces, social programs and all.

Common law can be overwritten with regular statutes. Not only that, but the common law did not give such precise meanings to at least some of the rights in the Charter. By having those rights now in the Constitution it is much harder to violate them.

Those rights were dictated rights and form part of a constitution never ratified in the 'Common Law, tradition by dictator Trudeau.

The state can't take those rights away without now changing the Constitution.

The entire Charter can be revoked by any PM of the day as unconstitutional if he or she so wishes.

Section 15(2) does not allow you to discriminate against others. It does not relegate people to second class status. But it does clarify that the government is allowed to help disadvantaged people.

This is your view not mine.

That is not the business of government to include in the Charter 'social rights' for a select few and again was imposed by a PM dictator.

Remember the Constitution of Canada does not belong to Parliament or the Legislatures.

It belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of our country will find the protection of their rights. And, our Constitution is to assist our governments and citizens in the maintenance of Law, Order and Justice, and in the preservation, expression and transmittal to succeeding generations of our nation’s culture and heritage.

[bk59]

With regard to taxation, that is an incorrect interpretation of sections 91 and 92. Provinces have the right to "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." That does not mean they have exclusive rights to all forms of direct taxation. Only direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes. Under section 91 the federal government has this power: "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." This would include direct taxation for federal purposes. So there is no problem with federal / provincial jurisdiction there.

The entire Charter can be revoked by any PM of the day as unconstitutional if he or she so wishes.

No PM can revoke the Charter. It is part of the Constitution. Any changes must be made according to the amending formula. The PM cannot declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional.

That is not the business of government to include in the Charter 'social rights' for a select few and again was imposed by a PM dictator.

Remember the Constitution of Canada does not belong to Parliament or the Legislatures.

It belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of our country will find the protection of their rights. And, our Constitution is to assist our governments and citizens in the maintenance of Law, Order and Justice, and in the preservation, expression and transmittal to succeeding generations of our nation’s culture and heritage.

How can you justify saying that the Constitution should not include social rights, but then say that the Constitution should preserve and pass on cultural values? Those two statements contradict each other.

What do you mean by " It belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of our country will find the protection of their rights"? Where will people find the protection of their rights?

[no queenslave]

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.

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.

It's not my problem but yours that you have been indoctrinated; and think you learned something about Canadian politics ; when all you know is government propaganda. No matter how many times you post your lies, the only one you are convincing is your other aliass

I know how corrupt the system is and have proved it in a court case.

[no queenslave]

With regard to taxation, that is an incorrect interpretation of sections 91 and 92. Provinces have the right to "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." That does not mean they have exclusive rights to all forms of direct taxation. Only direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes. Under section 91 the federal government has this power: "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." This would include direct taxation for federal purposes. So there is no problem with federal / provincial jurisdiction there.

No PM can revoke the Charter. It is part of the Constitution. Any changes must be made according to the amending formula. The PM cannot declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional.

How can you justify saying that the Constitution should not include social rights, but then say that the Constitution should preserve and pass on cultural values? Those two statements contradict each other.

What do you mean by " It belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of our country will find the protection of their rights"? Where will people find the protection of their rights?

Only a dictator would claim they have the power "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation" , and that is why you are such a puppet of the dictator. Corrupt court cases for raising money. Using unlawful means- but you justify that practice because of your by any mode or system. A charter of rights with a nothwithstanding clause which takes them away. A corrupt system with corrupt politicians who appoint corrupt judges. Nothing but fraud, and fraud makes all government powers just the same as SADDAM had.

[Leafless]

With regard to taxation, that is an incorrect interpretation of sections 91 and 92. Provinces have the right to "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." That does not mean they have exclusive rights to all forms of direct taxation. Only direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes. Under section 91 the federal government has this power: "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." This would include direct taxation for federal purposes. So there is no problem with federal / provincial jurisdiction there.

It is obvious you believe in Canada ruled by a dictatorship.

No PM can revoke the Charter. It is part of the Constitution. Any changes must be made according to the amending formula.

The amending formula is fraudulent and so is the Charter as it is based "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

Whose law?

Trudeau's law, that by all men are created equal. Natural rights vs. majority rule.

The principle of natural equality essentially means that no person (or group of persons) is so inher­ently superior as to rule others without their consent. This banishes the traditional claims of priests, kings, and nobles to rule on the basis of their alleged natural superiority, and replaces it with government by consent of the governed. In practice, this has meant some form of "majority rule" democracy.

Face it. Dictator Trudeau has created a constitution amended by a discriminatory Charter that was never ratified by Canadians, that favours natural rights over majority rights without the will of Canadians.

Trudeau reneged on Magna Carta marked the beginning of the "rule of law" tradition.

The 'rule of law' in Canada discriminates even further.

The application of the body of law to the government, does not restrict the government in any way since any desired government privilege can be made by the government into a legal provision. The rule of law should be seen as a bureaucratic hoop for the government to jump through, rather than as a material restriction on government power.

The current constitution is totally discriminatory and any PM with integrity would revoke this constitution as 'unconstitutional' as not only being discriminatory but constitutes the grounds for a revolution.

How can you justify saying that the Constitution should not include social rights, but then say that the Constitution should preserve and pass on cultural values? Those two statements contradict each other.

That is majority rights. Majority beliefs built the country.

What do you mean by " It belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of our country will find the protection of their rights"? Where will people find the protection of their rights?

Any change in the constitution (that should have been ratified by Canadians initially but was not) would require verification of that change incorporating a national referendum.

We are one mixed up country and do not even qualify for the dictionary definition of country, thanks to Trudeau and his gang of cultural misfits.

[bk59]

I know how corrupt the system is and have proved it in a court case.

Name the case. Explain how it proves that the system is corrupt. Link to the decision.

Only a dictator would claim they have the power "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation"

Only a dictator and those people who can read the Constitution. It is very clear and straightforward.

A corrupt system with corrupt politicians who appoint corrupt judges.

Show how the system is corrupt.

Show how the politicians are corrupt.

Show how the judges are corrupt.

And try to do that with actual facts, not with misstatements like "the BNA Act does not apply" or "the Queen tells our politicians what to do".

[bk59]

It is obvious you believe in Canada ruled by a dictatorship.

I believe in the rule of law. I pointed out where the law gives the federal government the power to tax income.

You making up the idea that I believe in a dictatorship does not change that fact.

The amending formula is fraudulent and so is the Charter

Nevertheless, anyone wishing to change the Constitution must follow the amending formula as it is laid out in the Constitution. No PM, or for that matter nobody at all, can unilaterally change the Constitution.

As for the rest of your post...

1. The idea that all men are created equal was around long before Trudeau.

2. You say that natural equality / rights lead to some form of majority rule democracy and then claim that the Charter favours natural rights over majority rights. If one leads to the other, then how can it favour one and not the other?

3. How was it that Trudeau "reneged on Magna Carta"?

4. The government is restricted in what it can do quite a lot actually. Laws are challenged in court and the government is prevented from doing certain things that are against the Constitution.

5. What constitutes a majority right?

[Leafless]

I believe in the rule of law. I pointed out where the law gives the federal government the power to tax income.

And do what?

Create a socialist country without the power and authority to do that. Only a corrupt Quebec PM would do that.

Nevertheless, anyone wishing to change the Constitution must follow the amending formula as it is laid out in the Constitution. No PM, or for that matter nobody at all, can unilaterally change the Constitution.

The Constitution is a statute not ratified by the people of Canada.

No PM to this date has had the political fortitude to stand up for the majority and declare the constitution a fraudulent, discriminatory piece of garbage and revoke it on the basis of being a legislated document denying Canadians the basic freedom of ratifying their own Charter. You say this cannot be done. Why? Because it was, so far, never attempted.

As for the rest of your post...

1. The idea that all men are created equal was around long before Trudeau.

So what!

This has no bearing whatsoever on creating a successful, self-sustaining country built on majority concerns.

Trudeau would not be promoting this B.S. if were not for the prosperity of certain provinces the socialist Liberal federal government can steal from under various social initiatives.

2. You say that natural equality / rights lead to some form of majority rule democracy and then claim that the Charter favours natural rights over majority rights. If one leads to the other, then how can it favour one and not the other?

Minority rule vs. majority rule or viewed as both being equal has destructive qualities and removes the incentive for a country to excel and sours the political atmosphere.

3. How was it that Trudeau "reneged on Magna Carta"?

Obviously he favoured:

Code Napoleonic embodies a heritage of state dictatorship, the route Trudeau choose for Canada rather than Common Law which embodies a heritage of freedom.

There is political unrest in Canada relating to the interplay between party politics and the electoral system, electoral reforms such as switching to proportional representation, electoral participation and the new voter registration regime, the media's role in the growing public distaste for politics and politicians, the rules and regulations surrounding provincial electoral democracy, and the usefulness of referendums as a decision-making tool for important policy issues.

Don't feel left out BK, inform yourself.

4. The government is restricted in what it can do quite a lot actually. Laws are challenged in court and the government is prevented from doing certain things that are against the Constitution.

Is this the joke of the year?

The courts are packed with Liberal appointed Supreme Court justices and the Liberal dominated Senate. Smells dictatorship all around.

5. What constitutes a majority right?

Or for that matter, minority rights as they are part of the population and participate in the referendum.

Rights determined by national referendum.

Most modern societies provide for their handicapped.

[no queenslave]

Name the case. Explain how it proves that the system is corrupt. Link to the decision.

Only a dictator and those people who can read the Constitution. It is very clear and straightforward.

Show how the system is corrupt.

Show how the politicians are corrupt.

Show how the judges are corrupt.

And try to do that with actual facts, not with misstatements like "the BNA Act does not apply" or "the Queen tells our politicians what to do".

All facts are on file - Queen's bench Winnipeg CI 05-01-43232 do your own photocopying. Get a copy from Harper; i sent him one with no reply.The M.P. said it is not his job to represent me in the house of commons; on a matter of corrupt judges.. Ask moloony how to have the rcmpp to investigate corruption.

Edited November 3, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

Name the case. Explain how it proves that the system is corrupt. Link to the decision.

Only a dictator and those people who can read the Constitution. It is very clear and straightforward.

Show how the system is corrupt.

Show how the politicians are corrupt.

Show how the judges are corrupt.

And try to do that with actual facts, not with misstatements like "the BNA Act does not apply" or "the Queen tells our politicians what to do".

any time you can arrange a government representative in front of a live T.V. audience- 1/2 hour. The public will decide not you.

[bk59]

And do what?

Create a socialist country without the power and authority to do that. Only a corrupt Quebec PM would do that.

You said federal income tax was unconstitutional. I showed you it was. Now you decide to ask something else. Fine. When you ask "and do what?" my answer is... whatever we elect them to do. If you don't like what the current people are doing, elect someone else. That is democracy.

The Constitution is a statute not ratified by the people of Canada.

The Constitution is not a statute. No statute is ratified by the people of Canada in the way that you are talking about. And there are many Constitutions in the world that were not ratified by the people of the country in the way that you are talking about. If there are examples then please feel free to list them here (with links proving your point please).

You say this cannot be done.

I said the PM cannot revoke it unilaterally (which is what you were saying). But as long as you follow the amending formula then you can change the Constitution. There is no other way to do that. Sorry.

So what!

Look, you're the one who claimed it was "Trudeau's law". I just pointed out you were wrong. I personally don't think it has anything to do with anything, but it was your point.

Trudeau would not be promoting this B.S. if were not for the prosperity of certain provinces the socialist Liberal federal government can steal from under various social initiatives.

So the idea that all men are created equal is BS now?

Code Napoleonic embodies a heritage of state dictatorship, the route Trudeau choose for Canada rather than Common Law which embodies a heritage of freedom.

Canada clearly has a strong common law tradition which has not changed since Canada was formed.

There is political unrest in Canada relating to the interplay between party politics and the electoral system, electoral reforms such as switching to proportional representation, electoral participation and the new voter registration regime, the media's role in the growing public distaste for politics and politicians, the rules and regulations surrounding provincial electoral democracy, and the usefulness of referendums as a decision-making tool for important policy issues.

Don't feel left out BK, inform yourself.

What exactly am I to inform myself of? You rambled on for a paragraph and said nothing. I am aware that there was a referendum in Ontario about changing the electoral system. So what? That has nothing to do with your claims about the Magna Carta, and in fact does not prove much of anything.

Is this the joke of the year?

The courts are packed with Liberal appointed Supreme Court justices and the Liberal dominated Senate. Smells dictatorship all around.

Right... of course. You cannot prove that they are corrupt, so instead you paint them all as Liberals and then call them corrupt and hope no one notices.

As an example, just last February the Supreme Court told the government that they must change one of their laws. The case was Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). So I guess the government can't do whatever it likes, as you claimed.

Or for that matter, minority rights as they are part of the population and participate in the referendum.

Rights determined by national referendum.

You didn't answer my question. What is a majority right?

Rights are not something that we determine by national referendum. Rights should never be subject to a simple vote like that. I have the right not to be a slave and treated like property. That right exists even if everyone else in Canada votes to say that I am a slave & should be treated like property.

Most modern societies provide for their handicapped.

Luckily Canada is one of those societies.

[bk59]

All facts are on file - Queen's bench Winnipeg CI 05-01-43232 do your own photocopying. Get a copy from Harper; i sent him one with no reply.The M.P. said it is not his job to represent me in the house of commons; on a matter of corrupt judges.. Ask moloony how to have the rcmpp to investigate corruption.

I would do my own photocopying. If you would just show a link to this mythical file of yours. Or even tell anyone what it is about.

Harper didn't respond? That's surprising. Then again, I don't respond to junk mail either.

[bk59]

any time you can arrange a government representative in front of a live T.V. audience- 1/2 hour. The public will decide not you.

You couldn't answer a single question of mine in a post on an internet forum. What do you expect to do with 30 minutes on TV?

[Leafless]

You said federal income tax was unconstitutional. I showed you it was.

You did not show me, you told me.

So show me.

Now you decide to ask something else. Fine. When you ask "and do what?" my answer is... whatever we elect them to do. If you don't like what the current people are doing, elect someone else. That is democracy.

You would not know the meaning of democracy if your life depended on it. It is evident you possibly are a Quebecer that is used to being fed with a silver spoon.

Our system is corrupt, plain a simple.

Since all parties are tied into this corrupt system it will mean NOTHING less than a revolution to create a real constitution and real representation or a different form of government entirely.

The Constitution is not a statute. No statute is ratified by the people of Canada in the way that you are talking about.

The Charter is a statute and the BNA Act is a statute and it was NOT ratified by the people of Canada.

It is totally fraudulent to suggest a premiers of a province represent the voices of individual Canadains within those province.

Legislative rule=DICTATORSHIP, a banana republic.

That is the point.

And there are many Constitutions in the world that were not ratified by the people of the country in the way that you are talking about.

Canada is next to a communist state in my book.

In multi-party liberal democracies, the system of government (executive, legislative and judicial) operates independently of any political party, with each party competing for a right to control the system of government for a specific tenure. This of course is not true in Canada as they are in reality all lackey's to one another feeding common political ideologies.

In a communist system best described for Canada as Marxist-Leninists, the state and the Communist Party claim to act in accordance with the wishes of the industrial working class.

I said the PM cannot revoke it unilaterally (which is what you were saying). But as long as you follow the amending formula then you can change the Constitution. There is no other way to do that.

Let's wait and see while Canada crumbles.

So the idea that all men are created equal is BS now?

Yes, majority rules. I have no use for slackers or the disadvantaged that refuse to evolve.

Canada clearly has a strong common law tradition which has not changed since Canada was formed.

What exactly am I to inform myself of? You rambled on for a paragraph and said nothing. I am aware that there was a referendum in Ontario about changing the electoral system. So what? That has nothing to do with your claims about the Magna Carta, and in fact does not prove much of anything.

If Trudeau was the statesman he let on to rather than dictate authority to the provinces to ratify the constitution, he would have insisted on a national referendum in accordance with common law tradition.

BTW-By Common Law is meant the Law of all the people, based upon our history, values, customs — our social mores or culture — and upon precedent, the decisions over countless generations of learned judges on every facet of our stream of history’s experience.

Right... of course. You cannot prove that they are corrupt, so instead you paint them all as Liberals and then call them corrupt and hope no one notices.

And you cannot prove they are not corrupt and hope no one notices. Why do you suppose very few bother to vote anymore?

You didn't answer my question. What is a majority right?

There is nothing to answer in a country like Canada that opts to ignore (by Charter) majority concerns. Dictatorship it is.

Rights are not something that we determine by national referendum. Rights should never be subject to a simple vote like that. I have the right not to be a slave and treated like property.

Only if the majority agrees, or in a country like Canada ruled by a lackey socialist dictatorship.

[no queenslave]

Parliamentary procedure - when an amendment is defeated ; the motion is defeated.

Same goes for the 2 attempts to fool the sovereign people into ratifying an amended B.N.A.Act as a Canadian constitution. A total failure by dictators trying to make their grabbing of power into a democracy.

In a democracy the people give the government their power ; in Trudeau's dictatorship government he claimed to give you a charter of rights; only a dictator has such power. as in a democracy the people never give up such rights. The dictatorship government spends billions in indoctrinating people to believe they are part of a democracy, and most ; like government posters here are just sheep following the dictator .

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery- control.

[Smallc]

Parliamentary procedure - when an amendment is defeated ; the motion is defeated.

Same goes for the 2 attempts to fool the sovereign people into ratifying an amended B.N.A.Act as a Canadian constitution. A total failure by dictators trying to make their grabbing of power into a democracy.

In a democracy the people give the government their power ; in Trudeau's dictatorship government he claimed to give you a charter of rights; only a dictator has such power. as in a democracy the people never give up such rights. The dictatorship government spends billions in indoctrinating people to believe they are part of a democracy, and most ; like government posters here are just sheep following the dictator .

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery- control.

We elect people to take care of the governing for us, so that we don't have to worry about it. I can't imagine life without government.

[no queenslave]

We elect people to take care of the governing for us, so that we don't have to worry about it. I can't imagine life without government.

If you believe that you have not woke up yet.You got no worry so why post?

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control.

[Smallc]

If you believe that you have not woke up yet.You got no worry so why post?

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control.

I have worries. Thats why e have the right to vote the way we choose. Its our way of making sure that those who govern look after us as we best see fit.

[no queenslave]

I have worries. Thats why e have the right to vote the way we choose. Its our way of making sure that those who govern look after us as we best see fit.

The best i see fit is to do away with the federal governments assuming all kinds of power for controlling you. As we best see fit ; leave us alone, I don"t need the federal government at all.

All the government wants is to control the people by controlling their finances. The best we see fit is to allow the sovereign people to write a constitution by the people to control the government instead of allowing the dictatorship government which assumed power to control the independent sovereign people.

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control.

[Smallc]

The best i see fit is to do away with the federal governments assuming all kinds of power for controlling you. As we best see fit ; leave us alone, I don"t need the federal government at all.

All the government wants is to control the people by controlling their finances. The best we see fit is to allow the sovereign people to write a constitution by the people to control the government instead of allowing the dictatorship government which assumed power to control the independent sovereign people.

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control.

Why don't you just make that last line your signature? Seriously, without a central, federal government, we would not have the amazing country that we do today.

[no queenslave]

Why don't you just make that last line your signature? Seriously, without a central, federal government, we would not have the amazing country that we do today.

Whatever country we have is in spite of the corrupt federal government.

We do not have the amazing country hat you think we have. The physical beauty of the country

was here long before the corrupt government. Go sit in on a few tax court cases ; and report back on how your government treated taxpayers- did they leave the court happy?

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control.

[Smallc]

Whatever country we have is in spite of the corrupt federal government.

We do not have the amazing country hat you think we have. The physical beauty of the country

was here long before the corrupt government. Go sit in on a few tax court cases ; and report back on how your government treated taxpayers- did they leave the court happy?

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control.

Canada is an amazing country and it has nothing to do with physical beauty. Government corruption is very low within our government, our economy is booming, federal coffers are overflowing, taxes are being lowered. So many things are getting better. It's just to bad that you can't see it.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Smallc

[jbg]

Canada is an amazing country and it has nothing to do with physical beauty. Government corruption is very low within our government, our economy is booming, federal coffers are overflowing, taxes are being lowered. So many things are getting better. It's jsut to bad that you can't see it.

As a Yank friendly to Canada I say "Amen".