when will Canadians vote to ratify a constitution?

[no queenslave]

Great point.

http://detaxcanada.org/kuhl

Walter F Kuhl

and you have ??

Quit changing it

http://detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

and R.Rogers Smith and his findings on the subject

Edited November 27, 2007 by no queenslave

[guyser]

http://detaxcanada.org/kuhl

Walter F Kuhl

and you have ??

Your link , like your logic , does not work.

[no queenslave]

Your link , like your logic , does not work.

http://detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

Edited November 27, 2007 by no queenslave

[saggio]

That is what the Statute of Westminster did. It gave us our freedom and sovereignty; if we ever wanted it. But the government has fooled the people to believe that they already have a democracy with a constitution.. You are right what we have is a crown corp in the name of the queen; with dictoral sovereign powers , and the politicians are just dummies, figerheads doing what they are told to do.. tax you , tax you. give me your money , i know what is best for you.

I'm not sure you know what exactly the Statue of Westminster really meant for Canada. Aside from the obvious (giving equal representation and standing to all Commonwealth Realms within the Empire), it also was supposed to give each realm an amending formula. Australia and New Zealand were among the participants that were able to agree on an amending formula for their respective constitutions; Canada was not. However, the Statue allowed a decision to be made regarding what sort of amending formula Canada would implement at a later date.

Which is exactly what happened in 1984, with the passage of the Canada Act in the British House of Commons, in Westminster. The Act removed a number of legacy house keeping things (I seem to remember something about appeals to the Judicial Office of the Privy Council, but that may have been earlier...), but also gave the Canadian government 5 different ways in which the constitution could be amended. Now, as you certainly know, the government of Quebec refused to sign the newly repatriated Constitution - however, due to the plethora of amending formulas established and codified in the Canada Act (and subsequent enactments in the Constitution Act 1984) this was determined to not affect the legal standing of the Constitution. It remains legitimate and binding on all citizens, including residents of Quebec.

There is nothing in the amending formulas that we have regarding the constitution that compels Her Majesty's government to use a referendum - it is done merely by convention, as was established by the attempted passage of the Charolettetown Accord. You'll notice that the previous attempt at constitutional reform (the Meech Lake Accord) did not require or use a referendum - it didn't need to, as there is nothing in the constitution that mandates a need for a referendum.

[no queenslave]

I'm not sure you know what exactly the Statue of Westminster really meant for Canada. Aside from the obvious (giving equal representation and standing to all Commonwealth Realms within the Empire), it also was supposed to give each realm an amending formula. Australia and New Zealand were among the participants that were able to agree on an amending formula for their respective constitutions; Canada was not. However, the Statue allowed a decision to be made regarding what sort of amending formula Canada would implement at a later date.

Which is exactly what happened in 1984, with the passage of the Canada Act in the British House of Commons, in Westminster. The Act removed a number of legacy house keeping things (I seem to remember something about appeals to the Judicial Office of the Privy Council, but that may have been earlier...), but also gave the Canadian government 5 different ways in which the constitution could be amended. Now, as you certainly know, the government of Quebec refused to sign the newly repatriated Constitution - however, due to the plethora of amending formulas established and codified in the Canada Act (and subsequent enactments in the Constitution Act 1984) this was determined to not affect the legal standing of the Constitution. It remains legitimate and binding on all citizens, including residents of Quebec.

here is nothing in the amending formulas that we have regarding the constitution that compels Her Majesty's government to use a referendum - it is done merely by convention, as was established by the attempted passage of the Charolettetown Accord. You'll notice that the previous attempt at constitutional reform (the Meech Lake Accord) did not require or use a referendum - it didn't need to, as there is nothing in the constitution that mandates a need for a referendum.

N.S.A.G. vs Canada 1951 SCr 31 dlr 369

In the supreme court in 1951 the ruling was the constitution belonged to the people and the federal government or provinces or acting together they could not change the constitution because it belonged to the people and they alone could change it.

The amending formula is in violation of the supreme court case 1951. Just because the government appoints corrupt judges to support its dictatorship , does not make it legal.

The government can't have whatever they want and call them self a democracy.

You are still allowing the government and queen to rule the country as a colony.

Just like Iraq or Afghanistan a democracy is created by the free and sovereign people agreeing on a constitution and ratifying it by a referendum vote by all the people; not just sum politicians; as in the dictatorship we have. You can vote for whoever you want as long as they obey the queen.

SADDAM ruled by convention.

The statute of westminster did by statute for Canadians , what the americans did by war-force;in creating free sovereign people of Iraq and Afghanistan so they could form a democratic government.

Edited November 28, 2007 by no queenslave

[jbg]

The statute of westminster did by statute for Canadians , what the americans did by war-force;in creating free sovereign people of Iraq and Afghanistan so they could form a democratic government.

I'm confused. So Canada's government has been "legal" since 1931?

[no queenslave]

I'm confused. So Canada's government has been "legal" since 1931?

And your post demonstrate how confused you are. If You have any results of the people of each province writing and ratifying a constitution by a referendum then you would have a legal government. The Statute of Westminster's purpose was to give the people their independence and sovereignty; and that is what it did, as Canada is a member of the U.N. an organization that is only open to .sovereign countries. But the U.N. does not limit its membership to only the countries with democratic governments. If you are part of a dictatorship then you would be the one claiming Canada has a legal government. The federal government in 1931 just assumed power after Canada quit being a colony of Britain, as if Canada was still a colony..

You can not be both a colony and a sovereign country at the same time. The government still governs in the name of the queen; not by any ratified constitution.

Federal personal income tax is their form of slavery-control with their appointed corrupt judges.

And i have the documented evidence to prove this and no accused judge has attempted to sue me, because they know this is true.

[g_bambino]

The federal government in 1931 just assumed power after Canada quit being a colony of Britain, as if Canada was still a colony..

Incorrect. From the Statute of Westminster, 1931:

"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder."

You can not be both a colony and a sovereign country at the same time. The government still governs in the name of the queen.

Correct.

[no queenslave]

Incorrect. From the Statute of Westminster, 1931:

"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder."

Correct.

Right,it just no longer applied to Canada. Did Iraq and Afghanistan keep the same politicians and constitution when they formed their new democracys-NO; but you think it would of been ok to do so, No need to hang Saddam , you could of just let him call his government a democracy.

[g_bambino]

Right,it just no longer applied to Canada.

Citation?

[jbg]

Did Iraq and Afghanistan keep the same politicians and constitution when they formed their new democracys-NO; but you think it would of been ok to do so, No need to hang Saddam , you could of just let him call his government a democracy.

But the governments replaced by the new democracies were arbitrary, one-person rule governments. Hyperbole aside, the British system has produced one of the longest runs of relatively democratic governments in history. Nothing to be sneezed at. Given Canada's inability to agree on an amending formula (for good reasons) continuing with an unpatriated constitution was not a bad idea.

Citation?

Probably something or another by Kuhl. Hold your suspense for logic.

[no queenslave]

But the governments replaced by the new democracies were arbitrary, one-person rule governments. Hyperbole aside, the British system has produced one of the longest runs of relatively democratic governments in history. Nothing to be sneezed at. Given Canada's inability to agree on an amending formula (for good reasons) continuing with an unpatriated constitution was not a bad idea. Probably something or another by Kuhl. Hold your suspense for logic.

Your so far down your hyperbole after the government indoctrination of you; it will take you 100 years to see the light.

It does not matter what governments they replaced; it is a demonstration of how democratic governments are created.

Relatively( fake) democratic governments-

That is what a democracy is ;the chance to agree on anything they want not some queen forced form of slavery.

QUOTE "The Queen pays me to post that lawyers and judges do their job. I am not going to take any position contrary to the one I'm paid to take" by jbg

Edited December 3, 2007 by no queenslave

[g_bambino]

Still waiting for your citation, queenie.

[no queenslave]

Still waiting for your citation, queenie.

Bimbo- the Statute of Westminster

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

also R.Rogers Smith a copyright report you can get if you are interested in Canadian history; that is based on hansard and documents .

Edited December 4, 2007 by no queenslave

[capricorn]

Bimbo- the Statute of Westminster

Bimbo, as in baby elephant?

http://www.tv.com/bimbo-the-baby-elephant/...71/summary.html

[no queenslave]

Anyone who is interested in understanding the Canadian political system would do themselves a service by getting a copy of "Alberta has the Sovereign right to issue and use its own credit" by R.ROGERS.SMITH. A Factual Examination ot the Constitutional Problem.

As R . Rogers Smith had a direct involvement in the Statute of Westminster you would understand what it is ; and why it was requested.if you read his report.

anyone willing to post Lord Carnarvon's speach in relation to the passing of the B.N.A.act ?HANSARD

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

[rightsnotprivileges]

You are right - the Canadian people have never ratified a constitution.

Without a Constitution there is no country.

When Trudeau went to GB to repartiate the "consititution", he was after the British North America Act 1867 (BNA Act) also known as the Constitution Act of 1867.

The BNA Act was actually an order or set of general instructions from Queen Victoria to the Governor General on how to govern Canada. The BNA Act itself expressed Queen Victoria's (and no one elses') authority. Funny thing about monarchs, they are the power and tell the government what to do. In 1893 the BNA Act was amended to remove the possibility of any successors assuming Queen Victoria's authority over Canada's Govenor General. Queen Victoria died in 1901 and so did her authority over Canada's Govenor General. BUT, noone did anything about it, like, maybe, draft a Constitution!? Hey, the Americans did it. The Govenor Generals and government of Canada just carried on AS IF they still had authority to govern derived from an ongoing succession of monarchs under the BNA or Constitution Act. NOT SO.

In 1931 Great Britain "decommissioned" Canada, and it was no longer a colony.

There is no continuity of constitutional authority in Canada. A Country needs a constitution to exist. A constitiution defines the country, establishes its government, sets the groundrules as to who has authority to do what. IT is the LAW of the land. Laws can be passed only if there is authority granted to governments to do so by the constitution or in a Monarchy, a monarch. No authority, no law. That is why laws which are "unconstituional" are thrown out.

Yes we have a profound constitutional problem in Canada, which is: no constitution at all.

JMHO

If we don't take care of the problem somone else will.

[no queenslave]

You are right - the Canadian people have never ratified a constitution.

Without a Constitution there is no country.

When Trudeau went to GB to repartiate the "consititution", he was after the British North America Act 1867 (BNA Act) also known as the Constitution Act of 1867.

The BNA Act was actually an order or set of general instructions from Queen Victoria to the Governor General on how to govern Canada. The BNA Act itself expressed Queen Victoria's (and no one elses') authority. Funny thing about monarchs, they are the power and tell the government what to do. In 1893 the BNA Act was amended to remove the possibility of any successors assuming Queen Victoria's authority over Canada's Govenor General. Queen Victoria died in 1901 and so did her authority over Canada's Govenor General. BUT, noone did anything about it, like, maybe, draft a Constitution!? Hey, the Americans did it. The Govenor Generals and government of Canada just carried on AS IF they still had authority to govern derived from an ongoing succession of monarchs under the BNA or Constitution Act. NOT SO.

In 1931 Great Britain "decommissioned" Canada, and it was no longer a colony.

There is no continuity of constitutional authority in Canada. A Country needs a constitution to exist. A constitiution defines the country, establishes its government, sets the groundrules as to who has authority to do what. IT is the LAW of the land. Laws can be passed only if there is authority granted to governments to do so by the constitution or in a Monarchy, a monarch. No authority, no law. That is why laws which are "unconstituional" are thrown out.

Yes we have a profound constitutional problem in Canada, which is: no constitution at all.

JMHO

If we don't take care of the problem somone else will.

Thank you. The government has known this all along ; as demonstrated by their attempt to get Canadians to ratify the B.N.A. act as our constitution.

http://detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

[jbg]

Thank you. The government has known this all along ; as demonstrated by their attempt to get Canadians to ratify the B.N.A. act as our constitution.

http://detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

You make some very solid points.

[rover1]

I think that constitutions and constitutional authority, may be a somewhat more complicated matter than Mr Slave supposes.

[no queenslave]

I think that constitutions and constitutional authority, may be a somewhat more complicated matter than Mr Slave supposes.

it's not complicated at all if you disregard all the government propaganda, and look at the facts.

Democracies are created by sovereign free people giving some of their sovereign power to the government; power from the people to the government; not government giving themself powers, to govern the people-as was don in canada and other dictatorships..

[g_bambino]

Bimbo- the Statute of Westminster

Sorry to make you look foolish, but the Statute of Westminster doesn't support your assertion that the BNA (read: Constitution Act, 1867) no longer applies. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Section 7.1: Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

The link does not contain any valid proof that the Constitution Act, 1867, is no longer applicable. There are merely opinions that are exact echoes of your own; just as poorly informed and biased.

So, try again.

Edited December 5, 2007 by g_bambino

[no queenslave]

Sorry to make you look foolish, but the Statute of Westminster doesn't support your assertion that the BNA (read: Constitution Act, 1867) no longer applies. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Section 7.1: Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

The link does not contain any valid proof that the Constitution Act, 1867, is no longer applicable. There are merely opinions that are exact echoes of your own; just as poorly informed and biased.

So, try again.

Thanks for posting you do not understand what the purpose of the Statute of Westminster was for. Your indoctrination of government propaganda is all you demonstrate.

"(2)NO LAW and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion ( also 7.(2)province and the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.) shall be void (without law) or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future act of the parliament of the United Kingdom . SO THE PEOPLE WERE GIVEN THEIR SOVEREIGNTY , FREEDOM TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED . TO HAVE A LAW OF THE LAND < THE PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE A CONSTITUTION RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE> THIS WAS NEVER DONE. So british law no longer applied and their is only a dictatorship in canada governing without any authority from the people; just like other dictatorships which assumed power.

[M.Dancer]

Amazing that after posting the same thing 100¹⁰times...Queen still doesn't have a clue what it means...and it is in plain english

[no queenslave]

Amazing that after posting the same thing 100¹⁰times...Queen still doesn't have a clue what it means...and it is in plain english

It is not amazing you still stick to your government propaganda.

R.Rogers Smith and Walter F Kuhl have documented what you think is true is not.

You must have the same problem as jbg

QUOTE "The queen pays me to post.... I am not going to take any position contrary to the one I,m paid to take. by jbg

Post your clue as to who requested the Statute of Westminster ; and why.

Hansard record .