are Canadians educated enough to write their own constitution?

[no queenslave]

I want a constitution by the people to control government powers, not the government writing it's own constitution as to how much power they want..

[Smallc]

I want a constitution by the people to control government powers, not the government writing it's own constitution as to how much power they want..

Ok, its really simple....the government....is....made up....of PEOPLE. PEOPLE wrote the constitution (pick whichever dated one you want except the first one) on behalf of the rest of the people, because that's what they were elected to do. In the first case, it was a group of PEOPLE, that decided to form a country.

[no queenslave]

Ok, its really simple....the government....is....made up....of PEOPLE. PEOPLE wrote the constitution (pick whichever dated one you want except the first one) on behalf of the rest of the people, because that's what they were elected to do. In the first case, it was a group of PEOPLE, that decided to form a country.

The B.N.A.Act was a British bill and no Canadian had a vote in the British parliament.

But they only got a united colony, not a country.

[Amazing Atheist]

I will give the same answers here i did in the other thread.

1: Yes and No.

Some Canadians are smart enough to write a constitution this being said most people don't really pay that much attention to the inner working of the government. However the people should be involved in such a process every step of the way.

2: Yes and No.

A constitution needs to apply to everyone including those in government.

3: No.

What would the government need with a constitution?

4: No.

===

Canadians wrote the Charter of Civil Rights which is a part of our constitution and in my opinion the most important part as it deals with our civil rights as a people.

If Canadians want to ensure their freedom a piece of paper is not the way to do it. Canadians must never fear the government, fearing the government almost always leads to oppression and likewise with xenophobia as well.

We must remember here that a paper with some rules and rights on it don't make you free, the people make themselves free because after all no one can just take power the people have to give it to them.

===

Why is it the only document people reference is the BNA act and not the Charter of Civil Rights which is far more important the the BNA act.

[no queenslave]

I will give the same answers here i did in the other thread.

1: Yes and No.

Some Canadians are smart enough to write a constitution this being said most people don't really pay that much attention to the inner working of the government. However the people should be involved in such a process every step of the way.

2: Yes and No.

A constitution needs to apply to everyone including those in government.

3: No.

What would the government need with a constitution?

4: No.

===

Canadians wrote the Charter of Civil Rights which is a part of our constitution and in my opinion the most important part as it deals with our civil rights as a people.

If Canadians want to ensure their freedom a piece of paper is not the way to do it. Canadians must never fear the government, fearing the government almost always leads to oppression and likewise with xenophobia as well.

We must remember here that a paper with some rules and rights on it don't make you free, the people make themselves free because after all no one can just take power the people have to give it to them.

===

Why is it the only document people reference is the BNA act and not the Charter of Civil Rights which is far more important the the BNA act.

NOTHWITHSTANDING Edited November 8, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

I will give the same answers here i did in the other thread.

1: Yes and No.

Some Canadians are smart enough to write a constitution this being said most people don't really pay that much attention to the inner working of the government. However the people should be involved in such a process every step of the way.

2: Yes and No.

A constitution needs to apply to everyone including those in government.

3: No.

What would the government need with a constitution?

4: No.

===

Canadians wrote the Charter of Civil Rights which is a part of our constitution and in my opinion the most important part as it deals with our civil rights as a people.

If Canadians want to ensure their freedom a piece of paper is not the way to do it. Canadians must never fear the government, fearing the government almost always leads to oppression and likewise with xenophobia as well.

We must remember here that a paper with some rules and rights on it don't make you free, the people make themselves free because after all no one can just take power the people have to give it to them.

===

Why is it the only document people reference is the BNA act and not the Charter of Civil Rights which is far more important the the BNA act.

How many federal income tax court cases have you attended ,zero , becaues you would understand the charter of rights does not apply.

[old_bold&cold]

It really does not take an education to write a constitution. Even the ten commandments could be seen as a kind of constitution. The basic element in such a document can be had from the people, who would have to agree on what is considered to be basic expectations to livea free and reasonable life, with out fear of the government, and an elected say in the people representing them.

The only time where education would be required would be in the drafting of these issues by a legal framework so they stand in law as being unchangeable, or change only with unaminous consent.

Teh drafters of the USA constitution did not have much education compared to todays people, and they did an ok job.

[M.Dancer]

Teh drafters of the USA constitution did not have much education compared to todays people, and they did an ok job.

???

Born in 1751, (James) Madison was brought up in Orange County, Virginia, and attended Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey). A student of history and government, well-read in law, he participated in the framing of the Virginia Constitution in 1776, served in the Continental Congress, and was a leader in the Virginia Assembly.

William Paterson was born on December 24, 1745, in County Antrim, in Northern Ireland, moved to what is the United States at age 2, and entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) at age 14. After graduating, he studied law with the prominent lawyer Richard Stockton and was admitted to the bar in 1768.

Young Adams went to Harvard College at age sixteen (in 1751).[2] His father expected him to become a minister, but Adams had doubts. After graduating in 1755, he taught school for a few years in Worcester, allowing himself time to think about his career choice. After much reflection, he decided to become a lawyer, and studied law in the office of James Putnam, a prominent lawyer in Worcester. In 1758, he was admitted to the bar.

..for example

Edited November 8, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Amazing Atheist]

How many federal income tax court cases have you attended ,zero , becaues you would understand the charter of rights does not apply.

There is no right in the charter stating that you do not have to pay your taxes. You don't need to attend any court case to know that it is illegal not to pay your taxes. If you want a new constitution just to abolish income tax it won't fly bottom line. Although I would agree that they need to be lower.

Taxes get shit done and pay the bills, nothing is free. Income taxes collected get invested back into the country.

Teh drafters of the USA constitution did not have much education compared to todays people, and they did an ok job.

So guys like Washington and Franklin etc were dumb compared to American kids coming out of universities today?

In regards to political science the engineers of the US were geniuses. The founding fathers of that country knew their stuff a hell of a lot better then most people today.

[geoffrey]

How many federal income tax court cases have you attended ,zero , becaues you would understand the charter of rights does not apply.

What the hell are you on about now?

[bk59]

How many federal income tax court cases have you attended ,zero , becaues you would understand the charter of rights does not apply.

How many have you attended? Has that attendance somehow helped you to understand that the Constitution Act, 1867 DOES apply, and that even a simple reading of its provisions gives the federal government the authority to create an income tax?

The only time where education would be required would be in the drafting of these issues by a legal framework so they stand in law as being unchangeable, or change only with unaminous consent.

Unanimous consent? Are you kidding? That is such an unrealistic goal. Nothing would ever get done.

[no queenslave]

There is no right in the charter stating that you do not have to pay your taxes. You don't need to attend any court case to know that it is illegal not to pay your taxes. If you want a new constitution just to abolish income tax it won't fly bottom line. Although I would agree that they need to be lower.

Taxes get shit done and pay the bills, nothing is free. Income taxes collected get invested back into the country.

So guys like Washington and Franklin etc were dumb compared to American kids coming out of universities today?

In regards to political science the engineers of the US were geniuses. The founding fathers of that country knew their stuff a hell of a lot better then most people today.

You are an indoctrinated atheist and have no understanding of tax court. Why do we have courts if not to question any charge against you?

You have no clue as to the procedure. The tax department audits you and comes up with any amount they want. If you don't agree with their amount you have to file a court case in tax court to prove their numbers are wrong- How many times have you tried ? You can't argue with the assessment because of the section in the tax act- the minister is not bound by any information supplied by you , or on your behalf.

That is why you are a willing slave, and don't even know it..

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

Edited November 9, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

How many have you attended? Has that attendance somehow helped you to understand that the Constitution Act, 1867 DOES apply, and that even a simple reading of its provisions gives the federal government the authority to create an income tax?

Unanimous consent? Are you kidding? That is such an unrealistic goal. Nothing would ever get done.

6. and you 0 - and you don't even know who is the plaintif in tax court or how corrup the judges are.

Canada uses the tax department as punishment to anyone who questions their powers. No charter of rights- no innocent till proven guilty ; and even no court case at all , just stealing your money with no judgment in any court at all. .You have no idea how corrupt the government is until you question the governments powers.

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

[Frankie]

Taxes get shit done and pay the bills, nothing is free. Income taxes collected get invested back into the country.

Yes tax is necessary, but apparently Income Tax in the United States and Canada as far as I know doesn't pay for anything except the Countries debt. A Debt which shouldn't exist in the first place. Here's a video if you wanna watch it, not about how it works, but how it is illegal, and how they justify it.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=752...h&plindex=0

I don't know for myself, but if that's true, then Income tax is unnecessary.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Frankie

[geoffrey]

6. and you 0 - and you don't even know who is the plaintif in tax court or how corrup the judges are.

I do, I have been a witness in Tax Court for a client I did work for. Your full of shit.

Canada uses the tax department as punishment to anyone who questions their powers.

No, they use it to collect taxes that are owed....

No charter of rights- no innocent till proven guilty ; and even no court case at all , just stealing your money with no judgment in any court at all.

Innocent until proven guilty still applies in tax court, but like speeding tickets, the government has to prove very little because much of it has already been accepted as fact. This is x tax law, you made y dollars, and should pay z amount. We didn't get any money. We want our money. Show us you either don't owe it or paid us. That's how it works.

The government loses the vast majority of tax cases brought before the courts. This wouldn't be true if your flawed thinking were true.

.You have no idea how corrupt the government is until you question the governments powers.

BS. If you don't pay your taxes, your going to have trouble.

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

Slavery control? Please. What the hell does that mean? Should I get my tin foil out?

[Frankie]

What do you mean by tin foil?

[no queenslave]

I do, I have been a witness in Tax Court for a client I did work for. Your full of shit.

No, they use it to collect taxes that are owed....

Innocent until proven guilty still applies in tax court, but like speeding tickets, the government has to prove very little because much of it has already been accepted as fact. This is x tax law, you made y dollars, and should pay z amount. We didn't get any money. We want our money. Show us you either don't owe it or paid us. That's how it works.

The government loses the vast majority of tax cases brought before the courts. This wouldn't be true if your flawed thinking were true.

BS. If you don't pay your taxes, your going to have trouble.

Slavery control? Please. What the hell does that mean? Should I get my tin foil out?

That explains it all ,USED to work for, with your understanding of things .

If it has already been accepted as fact then why the court case? That is prejudging the case before any evidence is presented; CORRUPTION.

You sound like all other tax dependent people for your income- afraid of loosing your job.

Who was the plaintiff in your case and what was the outcome?

Federal persomel income tax is a form of slavery-control by a corrupt dictatorship Canadian government.

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control by a dictatorship corrupt Canadian government.

[geoffrey]

That explains it all ,USED to work for, with your understanding of things .

I've never worked directly in tax and I'm not interested in doing so.

If it has already been accepted as fact then why the court case? That is prejudging the case before any evidence is presented; CORRUPTION.

No, it's a matter of efficency. And it's much more complex then that. It is very fair in nearly all situations. The fact that the CRA doesn't have money that you owe is pretty clear evidence. Now tell the judge why you didn't pay.

Like I said, the CRA loses the vast majority of cases that go to tax court. In the end it's not biased whatsoever.

You sound like all other tax dependent people for your income- afraid of loosing your job.

If Income tax was eliminated tomorrow, I'd still have a job. I'm an accountant but I don't touch tax, ever. I understand the law and how it applies though.

Who was the plaintiff in your case and what was the outcome?

That's a confidential matter. However, the taxpayer was challenging a CRA ruling. The taxpayer won when it successful demonstrated a certain CCA deduction was applied correctly within the Tax Act.

Federal persomel income tax is a form of slavery-control by a corrupt dictatorship Canadian government.

Federal personal income tax is a form of slavery-control by a dictatorship corrupt Canadian government.

You keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it anymore true each time you say it.

[no queenslave]

I've never worked directly in tax and I'm not interested in doing so.

No, it's a matter of efficency. And it's much more complex then that. It is very fair in nearly all situations. The fact that the CRA doesn't have money that you owe is pretty clear evidence. Now tell the judge why you didn't pay.

Like I said, the CRA loses the vast majority of cases that go to tax court. In the end it's not biased whatsoever.

If Income tax was eliminated tomorrow, I'd still have a job. I'm an accountant but I don't touch tax, ever. I understand the law and how it applies though.

That's a confidential matter. However, the taxpayer was challenging a CRA ruling. The taxpayer won when it successful demonstrated a certain CCA deduction was applied correctly within the Tax Act.

You keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it anymore true each time you say it.

You say you understand the law and how it applies and that your statement of " the fact that the CRA doesn't have money that you owe is pretty clear evidence." Demonstrates how corrupt you and your system is. Where was the court case that determined i owed any money at all? It is pretty clear a dictator says you owe the money and as a stooge of the corrupt Government you as an accountant supports such corruption.

By the same reasoning you owe me one million dollars , it is pretty clear i dont have the money you owe me - prove you paid me.Now tell me why you didn't pay.

just another lie you say "the CRA LOSES the vast majority of cases that go to tax court".

Just giving hope to taxpayers , and creating a job for yourself.

Since all tax court cases are public their is no CONFIDENTIAL matter, or are you claiming otherwise?. I have sat in on tax court cases i was not involved with just to witness the corr uption. In every case the taxpayer lost. So post the court cases which you claim CCRA lost; it should not be so hard with all the vast cases you claim.

search "ccra frend or foe Malach Apr 02. qxd " and

mortgage interest case heads to supreme court : CCRA STOW

Personal federal income tax is a form of slavery-control by a corrupt Canadian dictatorship government.

Edited November 9, 2007 by no queenslave

[bk59]

6. and you 0 - and you don't even know who is the plaintif in tax court or how corrup the judges are.

How do you know how many tax cases I have seen? The answer: you don't.

Where was the court case that determined i owed any money at all?

Where was the court case that determined you did not owe any money at all?

It is not a court case that determined that you owed money. It was a valid law.

[no queenslave]

How do you know how many tax cases I have seen? The answer: you don't.

Where was the court case that determined you did not owe any money at all?

It is not a court case that determined that you owed money. It was a valid law.

As provided by your charter of rights of innocent till judged guilty in a fair trial. Now you clame a dictatorship law of guilty without any evidence or court case. What law would that be?

What part in your so called Canadian constitution -word for word ?

Edited November 10, 2007 by no queenslave

[bk59]

As provided by your charter of rights of innocent till judged guilty in a fair trial. Now you clame a dictatorship law of guilty without any evidence or court case. What law would that be?

What part in your so called Canadian constitution -word for word ?

I have already shown you, multiple times, where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to raise taxes. Your inability to read does not make that authority invalid.

[no queenslave]

I have already shown you, multiple times, where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to raise taxes. Your inability to read does not make that authority invalid.

Must be by any corrupt means that you are referring to.

It is NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED I OWED MONEY ; just you. With your law that is controlled by your constitution and its charter of rights; which does not apply .

Thanks for telling everyone ; "IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY"

What happened to my right to a fair trial?

What happened to your constitution with it's charter rights?

What happened to democracy?

Just like SADDAM"S government, he had valid laws the Canadian dictatorship has it's own laws with it's own created constitution Supported by it.s corrupt supporters....

[bk59]

Must be by any corrupt means that you are referring to.

It is NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED I OWED MONEY ; just you. With your law that is controlled by your constitution and its charter of rights; which does not apply .

Thanks for telling everyone ; "IT IS NOT A COURT CASE THAT DETERMINED YOU OWED MONEY"

What happened to my right to a fair trial?

What happened to your constitution with it's charter rights?

What happened to democracy?

Just like SADDAM"S government, he had valid laws the Canadian dictatorship has it's own laws with it's own created constitution Supported by it.s corrupt supporters....

It is a law that determined you owed money. A law that has been upheld in court. Get over it. You want cases that show that this is a legitimate power? Fine:

R. v. McGrath in 2001

Hoffman v. Canada in 1996

Caron v. R. (not sure of the year)

Reference re Excise Tax Act (Canada) (Reference re Goods and Services Tax) in 1992

Winterhaven Stables Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1988

There are your cases. The Constitution gave the federal government the power. It legislated under that power. The legislation is valid and was upheld in court cases, including the court cases listed above.

Canadians got their fair trial. Stop whining just because your side of the argument lost.

[no queenslave]

It is a law that determined you owed money. A law that has been upheld in court. Get over it. You want cases that show that this is a legitimate power? Fine:

R. v. McGrath in 2001

Hoffman v. Canada in 1996

Caron v. R. (not sure of the year)

Reference re Excise Tax Act (Canada) (Reference re Goods and Services Tax) in 1992

Winterhaven Stables Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1988

There are your cases. The Constitution gave the federal government the power. It legislated under that power. The legislation is valid and was upheld in court cases, including the court cases listed above.

Canadians got their fair trial. Stop whining just because your side of the argument lost.

Why are you giving court cases when you said it was not a court case that determined I owed money? You just defeated your post; as you stated the court case was not the determining evidence,

Why am I not given the same fair trial or any trial at all ? If I appointed the judge I would win my court case too . When you write your own laws and appoint your own corrupt judge what do you expect the outcome to be; no different than SADDAM'S laws.?

AS you stated it was not a court case-- now you want to use fixed court cases by appointed corrupt judges. I am talking personal federal income tax and you are using gst.

get over it you can't even allow a individual without legal council to challenge the tax laws. What is your problem? If you think I am breaking a law then charge me >