The Federal Republic of Canada

[jbg]

"In the past, constitutional monarchs have co-existed with fascist and quasi-fascist constitutions (Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain) and with military dictatorships." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#List_of_current_reigning_monarchies

At least as to Spain Wikipedia is wrong. Franco arranged to be succeeded by a monarch, who established a constitutional monarchy. Franco ruled as a dictator without the benefit of a monarch.

[William Ashley]

Our constitution is made up not just of the Constitution Act, 1982, but of a whole series of acts,

You are writing this because - you think I don't know how the Canadian Constitution works.

including the Statute of Westminster, and a number of acts prior to the BNA Act,

The statute of westminster isn't the constitution, document that relates to the rights of Canada and other realms as accorded by the Imperial Parliament - the British by law can still revoke that document, and this was in part the reason for the Constitution Act of 1982.

including the Act of Settlement.

The act of settlement is only one of many such acts. Also it is not part of the Canadian Constitution. It is an act of British Parliament. Canada can set any type of rules for the monarch as they choose for succession through an act of parliament - this was founded in none other than THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT and other documents demonstrating the capacity to set requirements for succession. The provinces could do likewise, as they also assumed those powers.

To modify any of these constitutional conventions or acts requires invoking the amending formulas put forth in the Constitution Act, 1982.

Unfortunately there are many conventions some that may be applied and some that may not. The constitutional requirement for unanimous consent for a change to the office of the queen IS required. It is not only a de facto change but a legal change - it also requires the change of legal instruments - to say the least, it is a change of office. Charles is not Elizibeth. They embody a whole different person. The precedent has been established that the domestic territory has the right to accept or deny their monarch, that is the bottom line. This only presents the issue of the Province of Quebec accepting the monarch or other provinces that may not be loyal to Charles.

In particular, as pertains to this discussion, altering the nature of the Crown requires the Federal Parliament (that is the House of Commons and the Senate) and all the Provincial legislatures to consent to the amendment.

No nature and office arn't equal. Nature is the supposition of demeanor, office is something that relates to for whom is in it and what powers they have. Office is exercise, nature is regularity.

Come on William. This is basic constitutional law here.

And you are failing miserably at it.

The scenarios you invoke simply are not constitutional.

You are quite wrong. Up until the constitution act 1982 Parliament has to affirm the monarch with unanimous consent- when the 1982 act occured it added the requirement for unanimous consent of the provincial legislatures in writing. The nature of the monarch is that the provinces are seperate from the federation in regard to asssent and other issues (this is the nature of the federation and division of powers of the federal government and the provincial government - they are housed at the state level seperately) You may just not understand this.

No, a new monarch is not, unless the monarch is chosen in a way that violates the Act of Settlement.

The act of settlement isn't the end all of CANADIAN recognition of the monarch.

No they do not, not without going the appropriate amending formulas.

You are an absurd liar to suggest the realms do not have the chance of selecting to not approve their monarch. LIAR!

It isn't the first time this has happened.

Nope. There is never a point at which we are without a monarch. The last time that happened was after James II was stripped of the crown, and that in fact created an enormous difficulty for Parliament, as any of the acts it passed up until William III and Mary accepted the throne were of dubious constitutional status. It took a considerable constitutional slight of hand, involving William and Mary basically retroactively giving their Assent to the Bill of Rights, 1689.

No you are quite wrong. There are multiple stages to assuming full authority of the crown.

You're out of your depth, William.

No you are.

The only alteration to the law of succession since the Statute of Westminster was the the Succession to the Throne Act 1936, which was the instrument in Canada used to pass the British law recognizing Edward VIII's abdication (similar acts were passed in all the Commonwealth Parliaments, as required by the Statute of Westminster).

No you are quite wrong on this one. Constitutional acts directly relate to succession rights in that any rights or priveleges such as equality of person or otherwise might subset the legal status of right of succession, if they in any way relate to the basis of succession.

You can't just change a constitutional law like the Statute of Westminster. It must pass the amending formulas (prior to 1982 as set out by the BNA Act and then through the Parliament in Westminster, and after 1982 by the formulas put in place by the Constitution Act, 1982).

Law can be housed in more than one document or act and relate to a situation from different aspects.

BTW I strongly support codification of law, unfortunately parliament is not in this habit, and tends to create seperate acts instead of consolidated acts. It is rather unfortunate but your view is too narrow, and patently false.

The Canadian Constitution is identical to all the other Commonwealth Constitutions on this score. We are bound by the Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement.

WRONG. The Canadian constitution is unique and individual.

You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even seem to be aware of the acts in question.

You are talking about yourself here I see.

And neither, clearly are you. You don't seem to have any familiarity with our constitution. You just keep inventing scenarios, throwing them out there, and then throwing these sorts of petulant hissy fits when someone points out just how wrong you are.

No you frankly have no clue. You are ommiting and convuluting.

The Act of Settlement, like all acts of parliament which create constitutional changes can only be undone by explicit acts. In Canada, not even a mere Act of Parliament in the case of alteration of the succession or the nature of the Crown will do. It requires the Federal Parliament and the ten provinces to make the change.

It requires more than that.

Now you're just being moronic.

Oh so the monarch taking off accross the channel is grounds to remove them, yet, them not even living in the country isn't? Hmm.

I'm sure you can imagine the Queen coming over to slap me in the face for that one. The point is valid and you are the one using ad hominem to reduce a very strong point.

Can you read. The STatute of WEstminster is both a constitutional act and a treaty. It serves both functions.

A constitutional act is seperate from a constitutional document. Things need not be acts to be part of the constitution, but

treaty IS NOT the constitution, it may be subset to the constitution but it cannot be the constitution because there is a forbidance of foreign entities embedded in loyalties of state.

I've demonstrated it plenty. You just have the fantastical notions that have nothing to do with the constitution.

You 1. Omit relavant constitutional documents. 2. Limit the scope of documents 3. imbed foreign documents into the state.

Nothing to with.. says you yo mama?

There's no fudging.

You.

These are well understood constitutional conventions. I don't see how you think you can have a position, when you don't even seem to know the difference between a regular Act of Parliament and a constitutional act.

Britian doesn't have a constitution. It is a notion. Canada does. Britain doesn't have constitutional restrictions all acts in britain are the british constitution some however deal directly with the crown, others relate to the powers of the crown the government assumes from the crown for exercise of the acts. I know the law. Canada differs in that it established a framework through the BNA into disposition of limitation of their powers and reserves of the crown in BNA. This culminated into Constitutional acts actually called constitutional acts - those acts referenced other acts. The names of those acts were subsequently changed. At any time new documents can be added to this constitution - with the exception that in 1982 there was an added requirement for the provinces to also agree. Part of this issue comes from the fact Canada was seperate realms within BNA until the Federating events - and each legislature exercised somewhat equal powers. The statute of westminster - not affirmed by Canada until some time, gave more powers in creation of law thus exercise of powers.

I know the law. The legislative and conventional frame work is only one part of its history.

All the realms are bound by the same law of succession,

WRONG. They have the choice.

and the Statute of Westminster makes that a bedrock constitutional principle. Parliament and the provinces can no more defy it than they could any other constitutional limitation on their power, unless they expressly set out to amend the constitution.

WRONG, they can limit their power but they can not limit others power.

-----

BTW I find it both ironic and unfortunate that Quebec may once again not only hold its own fate but the rest of Canada. Although the constitutional precedent was set by the supreme court that they can ignore the law and quebecs rights as they choose. During the last constitutional ammendents.

-----------

Nice and easy, eh. - Re: The constitution of Canada.

hoser.

Edited September 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

The statute of westminster... the British by law can still revoke that document...

Not in Canada.

The act of settlement... is not part of the Canadian Constitution.

Yes it is.

The precedent has been established that the domestic territory has the right to accept or deny their monarch, that is the bottom line. This only presents the issue of the Province of Quebec accepting the monarch or other provinces that may not be loyal to Charles.

If Quebec's parliamentarians don't want Charles as king, either before or after the fact, they can exercise their right to "accept or deny their monarch" by trying to convince the rest of the country to either alter the line of succession (by amending the Statute of Westminster and then the Act of Settlement as per the provisions of S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982) or abolish the monarchy flat-out (as per the provisions of S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982), or they can opt to leave Confederation (as per... Well, that's not really clear). If they fail to do that before the Queen's death, they will have Charles as their king, perfectly according to Canada's constitution; no pre-approval necessary.

[+]

Edited September 1, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

William, your position on the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster is just plain wrong, and Canadian courts have in fact dealt with the issue. Just ask Tony O'Donohue, former Toronto city counsellor who tried to get the Act of Settlement overturned as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that because the Act of Settlement is a part of our constitution, the Charter does not supersede it, and whats more underlined that the Statute of Westminster requires that Canada reach agreements with the other Commonwealth Realms to amend the line of succession (as happened when Edward VIII abdicated). The Internet is a marvelous thing:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.html

In particular, Paragraph 36 of the ruling:

The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain...

You're wrong William. Just plain wrong. We are bound by the Act of Settlement, if not directly (as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 binds us as a constitutional declaration) then because Canada agreed to the Statute of Westminster, which itself makes the succession a binding constitutional agreement between the Commonwealth Realms.

BTW, does MLW have a documents section. I have the full text of this ruling, and whenever William tries to make hay with his nonsensical and utterly incorrect claims, it would be nice to point him to a ruling against another deluded sod.

Edited September 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

Not in Canada.

That is only partially correct.

Yes it is.

Where? FYI it is a constitutional document not a Canadian Constitutional Act. The ambiguity would rest on "part of" it is referenced in or assumed in by convention, but not part of.

If Quebec's parliamentarians don't want Charles as king, either before or after the fact, they can exercise their right to "accept or deny their monarch" by trying to convince the rest of the country to either alter the line of succession (by amending the Statute of Westminster and then the Act of Settlement as per the provisions of S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982) or abolish the monarchy flat-out (as per the provisions of S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982), or they can opt to leave Confederation (as per... Well, that's not really clear). If they fail to do that before the Queen's death, they will have Charles as their king, perfectly according to Canada's constitution; no pre-approval necessary.

[+]

It requires UNANIMOUS CONSENT.. take a look at the last x number of assumptions/successions. Take a close look at the unanimous acclaim of parliament in the past - this was befor the bloc.

This was even befor Charles De Gaulle was kicked out the country and told not to come back for spouting "vive quebec!", "We must liberate Quebec"

Unanimous consent is the precedent even without the constitution of 1982

Edited September 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

That is only partially correct.

Impossible. Since 1982, the British parliament has zero capability of legislating for Canada; the Statute of Westminster that's a part of the Canadian constitution cannot be touched by the parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the two versions of the Statute of Westminster in Canada and Britain are currently not identical: in 1982, Canada repealed section 4 and subsection 7(1). You are arguing on the assumption that Canada is not independent.

Where?

TB has already addressed that question for you.

It requires UNANIMOUS CONSENT.. take a look at the last x number of assumptions/successions. Take a close look at the unanimous acclaim of parliament in the past - this was befor the bloc.

A change to the line of succession or the abolition of the monarchy requires unanimous consent. There were no "acclaims" of parliament for previous accessions, only proclamations issued by the governor general (or administrator) on the advice of the Privy Council on the day the accession took place. Succession is automatic as per the constitution.

[+]

Edited September 1, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

That is only partially correct.

Where? FYI it is a constitutional document not a Canadian Constitutional Act. The ambiguity would rest on "part of" it is referenced in or assumed in by convention, but not part of.

It requires UNANIMOUS CONSENT.. take a look at the last x number of assumptions/successions. Take a close look at the unanimous acclaim of parliament in the past - this was befor the bloc.

This was even befor Charles De Gaulle was kicked out the country and told not to come back for spouting "vive quebec!", "We must liberate Quebec"

Unanimous consent is the precedent even without the constitution of 1982

--------

BTW I think this may be the best chance to see a fist fight in parliament if not all round royal rumble.

And in the matter of the next monarch of Canada - what is this there is a message for the bloc to leave the room to speak with someone down the hall.

Edited September 1, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

--------

BTW I think this may be the best chance to see a fist fight in parliament if not all round royal rumble.

And in the matter of the next monarch of Canada - what is this there is a message for the bloc to leave the room to speak with someone down the hall.

The message for the Bloc, or any republican group is this. Canada is a constitutional monarchy which is bound by that constitution to accept the British Monarch as its own head of state. If they want that changed, there's no shortcut, and well there shouldn't be for any constitutional provision, so they'll have to get the Federal Parliament and the Provincial governments, all eleven entities mind you, to agree.

In other words, we're going to be a constitutional monarchy sharing our monarch with the UK and the other Realms for a looong time to come.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In other words, we're going to be a constitutional monarchy sharing our monarch with the UK and the other Realms for a looong time to come.

Ummm...OK...but what if he/she is Catholic.

[Moonlight Graham]

I dont know about everyone else but i'm hot damn looking forward to King Charles on my coins and 20-dollar bills. Giddy up!!

[ToadBrother]

Ummm...OK...but what if he/she is Catholic.

Then they cannot be in the line of succession. As I have repeatedly said, the Act of Succession still applies, and if Britain wants to alter the succession, as was done when Edward VIII abdicated, everyone has to agree.

[William Ashley]

William, your position on the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster is just plain wrong, and Canadian courts have in fact dealt with the issue. Just ask Tony O'Donohue, former Toronto city counsellor who tried to get the Act of Settlement overturned as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that because the Act of Settlement is a part of our constitution, the Charter does not supersede it, and whats more underlined that the Statute of Westminster requires that Canada reach agreements with the other Commonwealth Realms to amend the line of succession (as happened when Edward VIII abdicated). The Internet is a marvelous thing:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2003/2003canlii41404/2003canlii41404.html

In particular, Paragraph 36 of the ruling:

The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain...

You're wrong William. Just plain wrong. We are bound by the Act of Settlement, if not directly (as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 binds us as a constitutional declaration) then because Canada agreed to the Statute of Westminster, which itself makes the succession a binding constitutional agreement between the Commonwealth Realms.

BTW, does MLW have a documents section. I have the full text of this ruling, and whenever William tries to make hay with his nonsensical and utterly incorrect claims, it would be nice to point him to a ruling against another deluded sod.

The Ruling is a false dichotomy due to it taking political information

"As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent"

“Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . .” Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566."

However St. Laurent wasn't around for the patriation of Canada in 1982 - making a distinct Queen of Canada.

You are simply false in the currency of your position.

The 1982 patriation would directly challenge the basis of the ruling.

----

In as much the Superior court neglected to understand the nature of patriation - and creation of a seperate queen of Canada realizing that

Canada IS NOT united under the United Kingdom -- if your earlier statements about the UK not being able to make law in Canada.

It is a false dichotomy.

=========

It is a rather complex situation but you can't have it both ways.

--

Personally the Supercition issue still exists - however - here are the actual facts.

1. The realms can opt to recognize the monarch - as occured in South Africa, India, Pakistan and other areas. The british parliament and house of lords have long been able to overrule or replace the monarch. Also the unanimous consent of the monarch has been given during the begining of each new reign.

2. This ruling uses information on the status of the monarch in the 1950's before the patriation of the constitution. Canada in the 50's WAS still British just not the Islands. This changed over the next three decades until finally commonwealth citizenship replaced british subject status. The judges in this ruling made huge errors in suggesting Canada is under the crown of the United Kingdom - this is completely ignoring the patriation.

While this wouldn't be bad per se - (I am a strong supporter of the commonwealth) The Queen of the UK is subset to the British Parliament and you have stated that Canada is not.

You need to straighten up your view because you are pussy footing to suit yourself rather than taking a stance that actually stands firm.

Nor does the UK recognize Canadians as having British Subject status.

PS the act of settlement was only partially de jure - as it was held at a time of contested parliament - not exercising under royal authority.

Also if Parliaments are equal at law - and the british have the capacity to alter the act of settlement - one must ask - does Canada have the capacity to? Or does it change in Canada if it changes in Britain?

Or does one have to ask, if it is entrenched in Canada but not Britain is the wholeness of rights of succession maintained in Canada? You are stating that the UK controls the Canadian Constitution - this is simply contrary to patriation, and the ammending formula set forth.

What is it? Hmm?

But what is it... it could happen, not saying it will but people are looking through the glass

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/no-plans-to-amend-the-act-of-settlement-government-says-the-church-of-england-newspaper-july-9-2010-p-4/

Harper states that the power to repeal and ammend could alter this "constitutional doccument"

On July 1, 2010 the member for Rhondda, Chris Bryant (Lab.) pressed Mr. Harper to defend the government’s decision. Mr. Harper responded that altering the law was “complicated,” adding that a “significant number of pieces of legislation” would have to be “considered, amended or possibly repealed: the Bill of Rights 1689, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, and the Regency Act 1706.”

Yet the constitution acts are not mentioned.. hmmm? Currious...

Edited September 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

The Ruling is a false dichotomy due to it taking political information

"As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent"

“Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . .” Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566."

However St. Laurent wasn't around for the patriation of Canada in 1982 - making a distinct Queen of Canada.

The Reigning Monarch became distinct in 1931, William. That was one of the major points, that in essence the Monarchy was "devolved", instead of being an Imperial monarch, so far as the realms were concerned, the Monarch became the King of each realm directly (this pertains to the Monarch's position in the parliament of each Realm).

You are simply false in the currency of your position.

William, continually repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make you right. I have constitutional opinion on my side. I have a court ruling pertaining directly to the succession on my side. You have a badly thought out and irrelevant line of thinking that you have yet to bring any evidence to bear to demonstrate.

The 1982 patriation would directly challenge the basis of the ruling.

Nope, the Constitution Act, 1982 challenged none of this in any way. Rather, it in fact made changing it even more difficult. It would have been easier prior to 1982 because only the Federal Parliament was involved in altering the succession (as demonstrated by Edward VIII's abdication, the provinces did not have any say at all).

----

In as much the Superior court neglected to understand the nature of patriation - and creation of a seperate queen of Canada realizing that

The court understood it fully. The Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement were no more extinguished by the Constitution Act, 1982 than the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or any other number of acts of Parliament of constitutional import.

Canada IS NOT united under the United Kingdom -- if your earlier statements about the UK not being able to make law in Canada.

We share the same monarch and are bound by constitutional documents stating who that monarch is, and will be.

It is a false dichotomy.

It's a fact.

=========

It is a rather complex situation but you can't have it both ways.

--

There's nothing complex about it. The Realms share the same monarch. They have the same constitutional documents stating how that monarch is determined.

Personally the Supercition issue still exists - however - here are the actual facts.

Give it a rest, William.

1. The realms can opt to recognize the monarch - as occured in South Africa, India, Pakistan and other areas.

They became republics, William. And I never said we couldn't boot the Queen or Her heirs. What I said was that Parliament couldn't do it unilaterally, it would requirement agreement with all the provinces.

The british parliament and house of lords have long been able to overrule or replace the monarch. Also the unanimous consent of the monarch has been given during the begining of each new reign.

When discussing Parliament, one usually is referring to the Commons and the Lords. At any rate, yes, Parliament ultimately controls the succession, but the Statute of Westminster modified that to all the Parliaments in the Commonwealth Realms.

2. This ruling uses information on the status of the monarch in the 1950's before the patriation of the constitution. Canada in the 50's WAS still British just not the Islands. This changed over the next three decades until finally commonwealth citizenship replaced british subject status. The judges in this ruling made huge errors in suggesting Canada is under the crown of the United Kingdom - this is completely ignoring the patriation.

The Patriation does not effect how a new monarch is installed. Quite the opposite. It further embeds it.

While this wouldn't be bad per se - (I am a strong supporter of the commonwealth) The Queen of the UK is subset to the British Parliament and you have stated that Canada is not.

Oh good grief William? Are you completely ignorant? The Queen is not subset to Parliament. She cannot act in defiance of Parliament. It's not the same thing, and believe me, this was all battled out over three centuries ago.

You need to straighten up your view because you are pussy footing to suit yourself rather than taking a stance that actually stands firm.

I'm not going to respond to this kind of idiotic taunting, William.

Nor does the UK recognize Canadians as having British Subject status.

Which is utterly irrelevant.

PS the act of settlement was only partially de jure - as it was held at a time of contested parliament - not exercising under royal authority.

This sentence does not even make sense. The Act of Settlement set up the rules of succession, pure and simple. Those rules are still in place. A Roman Catholic cannot sit on the throne, any candidate for the throne must be a descendant of the Electress Sophia and must be a Protestant. The rules of primogeniture apply. It's a binding constitutional document, and since 1931, if the British Parliament wanted to change those rules, they would have to seek the agreement of the other Realms. And that's precisely what happened when Edward VIII abdicated, and Parliament moved to prevent any heirs of his from being in the line of Succession.

Also if Parliaments are equal at law - and the british have the capacity to alter the act of settlement - one must ask - does Canada have the capacity to? Or does it change in Canada if it changes in Britain?

The British do not have freedom to alter the Act of Settlement. They must seek the agreement of the other Realms. Have you listened to anything I've said?

Or does one have to ask, if it is entrenched in Canada but not Britain is the wholeness of rights of succession maintained in Canada? You are stating that the UK controls the Canadian Constitution - this is simply contrary to patriation, and the ammending formula set forth.

What is it? Hmm?

It is entrenched in all the Realms, William. The British Parliament has no more power to unilaterally alter the succession than does Canada, Jamaica or any of the other Realms.

But what is it... it could happen, not saying it will but people are looking through the glass

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/no-plans-to-amend-the-act-of-settlement-government-says-the-church-of-england-newspaper-july-9-2010-p-4/

Of course all of this could be altered. It just requires all the Realms to agree, and in Canada's case, any alteration to the succession would also require the consent of the provinces, as it modifies the position of the Sovereign as referenced in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[William Ashley]

The Reigning Monarch became distinct in 1931, William. That was one of the major points, that in essence the Monarchy was "devolved", instead of being an Imperial monarch, so far as the realms were concerned, the Monarch became the King of each realm directly (this pertains to the Monarch's position in the parliament of each Realm).

The patriation though divided the power of law in supposed totality.

William, continually repeating the same BS over and over again doesn't make you right.

I could say the same for you.

I have constitutional opinion on my side.

Really now? Says who?

I have a court ruling pertaining directly to the succession on my side.

And a ruling that violates the constitutional powers of Canada to adhere to an ammending formula.

You supporting a seriously flawed ruling does no one any good.

You have a badly thought out and irrelevant line of thinking that you have yet to bring any evidence to bear to demonstrate.

I would say the same of you. Arguably that you don't have a line of thinking, and that you are purpoting rubish on the basis of supporting a result, not establishing a foundation. Your flaw is that if you found something without legal basis, it is criminal.

Nope, the Constitution Act, 1982 challenged none of this in any way. Rather, it in fact made changing it even more difficult. It would have been easier prior to 1982 because only the Federal Parliament was involved in altering the succession (as demonstrated by Edward VIII's abdication, the provinces did not have any say at all).

And since the british government still purports it CAN change it by ammending their own legislation - this puts into question the "awareness of powers of law"

Also you are still simply wrong in the choice of the realms to recognize the sovereign. There are two courses available during succession acceptance or denial. The fact is succession is not required, parliament must approve the monarch. It is customary.

The court understood it fully. The Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement were no more extinguished by the Constitution Act, 1982 than the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or any other number of acts of Parliament of constitutional import.

You are wrong in that those acts can still be ammened in the UK. The Canadian constitution IS NOT subset to the British Parliament - as you have stated, and torpedoing your own argument earlier - that repeal has no effect in Canada - so too you would state this as not having effect in Canada for repeal or ammendment of other constitutional acts - YET - you also state that British succession rules apply. At law treaty does not have force over the constitution. Treaty

can be made by parliament - the constitution cannot be altered by parliament alone but requires

an ammending formula. These are things you are neglecting you are diverging the powers of state

in a corrupt way. Fundamentally your view is conflicted and false, hopefully you can recgonize

you are stating illogical positions.

We share the same monarch and are bound by constitutional documents stating who that monarch is, and will be.

Each realm is seperate. The commonwealth is an international organization where the members may "Freely" choose to take part. They can also be removed.

It's a fact.

There's nothing complex about it. The Realms share the same monarch. They have the same constitutional documents stating how that monarch is determined.

You are wrong. They have seperate monarchs.

Give it a rest, William.

Educated yourself a little.

They became republics, William. And I never said we couldn't boot the Queen or Her heirs. What I said was that Parliament couldn't do it unilaterally, it would requirement agreement with all the provinces.

based on?

When discussing Parliament, one usually is referring to the Commons and the Lords. At any rate, yes, Parliament ultimately controls the succession, but the Statute of Westminster modified that to all the Parliaments in the Commonwealth Realms.

You are using dated viewpoints - the structure of the realms changed dramatically over the last 100 years.

The Patriation does not effect how a new monarch is installed. Quite the opposite. It further embeds it.

You are very wrong. Patriation means Canada controls its own law, from top to bottom.

Oh good grief William? Are you completely ignorant? The Queen is not subset to Parliament.

The Queen IS subset to parliament, and likewise parliament is subset to the Queen. She is part of Parliament - with the powers to summon or dispell. Parliament though has the customary right

to remove the monarch - and could do so by ammending the constitution. By customary right she might be obigated to take advice of her ministers - although I'm not sure if reserve powers would

apply here - it clearly hasn't in other instances where the same thing happened.

She cannot act in defiance of Parliament. It's not the same thing, and believe me, this was all battled out over three centuries ago.

You are ignoring the past three centuries. The realms were determined in more places than on the fields of England.

I'm not going to respond to this kind of idiotic taunting, William.

No answer?

Which is utterly irrelevant.

Because you say so? That is a strong point...

This sentence does not even make sense. The Act of Settlement set up the rules of succession, pure and simple.

You are taking a rather narrow view. There is far more to assumption than one act. There are a whole bunch of established protocols, customs, conventions, and legislation in that regard.

Those rules are still in place. A Roman Catholic cannot sit on the throne, any candidate for the throne must be a descendant of the Electress Sophia and must be a Protestant. The rules of primogeniture apply. It's a binding constitutional document, and since 1931, if the British Parliament wanted to change those rules, they would have to seek the agreement of the other Realms. And that's precisely what happened when Edward VIII abdicated, and Parliament moved to prevent any heirs of his from being in the line of Succession.

Ok now what else is there.. you know there are other things too. Your choice of taking on one part and forgetting the rest.

Eg. You know when the King befor he abdicated wanted to marry a common woman he wasn't allowed because it altered the "artistocratic blood" rule or perhaps others... Yet who is Camilla.. but lo and behold - this has already been decided showing the changing of the times.

The fact is you can try to pigeon hole something on false grounds for the sake of getting the result you'd like - it doesn't make it any more legal - and on a fundamental level - doing the wrong thing will only spell disaster if there is true force of law and right. Because you will create problems by corrupting the law.

The British do not have freedom to alter the Act of Settlement. They must seek the agreement of the other Realms. Have you listened to anything I've said?

You are actually somewhat wrong. They can. There is treaty but treaty has been violated by Britain in the past, and it hasn't altered their ability to exist.

It is entrenched in all the Realms, William. The British Parliament has no more power to unilaterally alter the succession than does Canada, Jamaica or any of the other Realms.

This is only partially true the grounds explicity states that any state may exit the formula.

It is their option to follow the line as it is in Britain or do it their own way.

Of course all of this could be altered. It just requires all the Realms to agree, and in Canada's case, any alteration to the succession would also require the consent of the provinces, as it modifies the position of the Sovereign as referenced in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

This is only one half - you are completely ommitting the free choice portion of the agreements.

Edited September 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

The fact is succession is not required, parliament must approve the monarch. It is customary.

And here we are back to the crux of your argument, and it's still bullshit.

Far from being not required, succession is automatic. Parliament need not approve some candidate for the position of monarch while the throne sits empty, because a law that we know is part of the Canadian constitution - the Act of Settlement - already states that, once one sovereign dies, his or her heir immediately inherits the Crown: "[T]he crown and regal government... shall be, remain and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia and the heirs of her body being protestants." [Act of Settlement 1701] Parliament can't even function without the sovereign, one of its three constitutent parts and who's royal assent is required to pass bills into law. Any parliament that tried to operate without a monarch because it refused to recognise the legitimacy of the sovereign, without first amending the appropriate parts of the constitution according to other appropriate parts of the constitution, would be in violation of the constitution.

[ToadBrother]

The patriation though divided the power of law in supposed totality.

This doesn't even make sense.

And a ruling that violates the constitutional powers of Canada to adhere to an ammending formula.

You supporting a seriously flawed ruling does no one any good.

It does no such thing. It merely states that the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster are both parts of our constitution, something that pretty much every constitutional scholar will agree with. In fact, though pretty much every aspect of it save Habeas Corpus has been superseded, even the Magna Carta is still part of our constitution.

I would say the same of you. Arguably that you don't have a line of thinking, and that you are purpoting rubish on the basis of supporting a result, not establishing a foundation. Your flaw is that if you found something without legal basis, it is criminal.

Now you're just being idiotic.

And since the british government still purports it CAN change it by ammending their own legislation - this puts into question the "awareness of powers of law"

Britain purports no such thing over the Act of Settlement.

Also you are still simply wrong in the choice of the realms to recognize the sovereign. There are two courses available during succession acceptance or denial. The fact is succession is not required, parliament must approve the monarch. It is customary.

No there are not. Parliament's approval is not required for the succession, because there's an Act of Parliament that already recognizes the succession. Namely, the Act of Settlement 1701.

You are wrong in that those acts can still be ammened in the UK. The Canadian constitution IS NOT subset to the British Parliament - as you have stated, and torpedoing your own argument earlier - that repeal has no effect in Canada - so too you would state this as not having effect in Canada for repeal or ammendment of other constitutional acts - YET - you also state that British succession rules apply. At law treaty does not have force over the constitution. Treaty

can be made by parliament - the constitution cannot be altered by parliament alone but requires

an ammending formula. These are things you are neglecting you are diverging the powers of state

in a corrupt way. Fundamentally your view is conflicted and false, hopefully you can recgonize

you are stating illogical positions.

I can only assume by this point that you're either unwilling of reading what I write, or incapable of comprehending it. Each Realm has its own constitution, separate and independent of the others. However, each Realm shares a number of constitutional precepts and documents; the most important for our purposes being the Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement. It is a bedrock part of all the Realms' constitutions that none can alter the succession without the approval of the others. All the Realms, of course, have the power to amend their constitutions, the amending formulas being anything from the UK and New Zealand, where a simple Act of Parliament is sufficient to amend the constitution through to Canada, where our constitution requires alterations to the nature of the Crown have the approval of both the Federal Parliament and the provinces.

You seem to be deeply confused as to my point. I'm not denying that we could sever our relationship with the British Monarchy. What I'm denying is that any single Province or the Federal Parliament alone could. I am also stating here that Parliament does not need to approve each new monarch. It (and by It, I mean all the Parliaments in the Realms, who are coeval on this point) could decide to change the succession, toss out a king and name someone else, but it requires all to agree. As it is, our constitution not only states that Queen Elizabeth II is our monarch, it is also part of our constitution that Prince Charles is her heir and our future king.

Each realm is seperate. The commonwealth is an international organization where the members may "Freely" choose to take part. They can also be removed.

Now you're just muddying the waters. The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Realms are two different things. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, much as the Secretary General is the head of the United Nations. In both cases, the office does not entail an impingement on the sovereignty of those nations (save by treaty).

The Commonwealth Realms are separate (though all the Realms are, naturally, members of the Commonwealth of Nations). Unlike the Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth Realms are all constitutional monarchies sharing the same Monarch.

Come on William. If you're trying to confuse the situation, I applaud you, but I'm not a moron, and you shouldn't think that I am.

You are wrong. They have seperate monarchs.

They have the same monarch, but the monarch's position is different in each Realm.

You are very wrong. Patriation means Canada controls its own law, from top to bottom.

And nothing in this is incompatible with what I've said. It's just that to choose someone else to be the sovereign, it would require the Federal Parliament and all the provinces to agree. If they agreed upon Elizabeth II's death to name someone else Sovereign, then that would constitute an amendment to the constitution; a repudiation of the Statute of Westminster and repeal of the Act of Settlement 1701.

The Queen IS subset to parliament, and likewise parliament is subset to the Queen. She is part of Parliament - with the powers to summon or dispell. Parliament though has the customary right

to remove the monarch - and could do so by ammending the constitution. By customary right she might be obigated to take advice of her ministers - although I'm not sure if reserve powers would

apply here - it clearly hasn't in other instances where the same thing happened.

The Queen is not a subset of Parliament any more than Parliament is a subset of the Queen. The Queen is the head of state, the Executive if you will. Parliament is the legislative. Parliament chooses a government which then serves at the pleasure of the Queen. The Queen is obligated to take the advice of Her Ministers, and in that way is dependent upon them save in very rare circumstance, but many Parliaments have come and gone in all Her Realms since she came to the throne.

You are ignoring the past three centuries. The realms were determined in more places than on the fields of England.

I have no idea what this even means.

Ok now what else is there.. you know there are other things too. Your choice of taking on one part and forgetting the rest.

Eg. You know when the King befor he abdicated wanted to marry a common woman he wasn't allowed because it altered the "artistocratic blood" rule or perhaps others... Yet who is Camilla.. but lo and behold - this has already been decided showing the changing of the times.

That is completely wrong. Edward VIII abdicated because of staunch opinion at the time that he could not marry a divorcée and remain head of the Church of England. There was incredible controversy over this. One of the solutions offered to Edward VIII was that he and Ms. Simpson could marry, but she would not be Queen and none of their descendants would be in the line of succession. From what I understand, Edward VIII found this intolerable. But another constitutional rule applies here, and that is the Sovereign or those in line of succession cannot marry without the consent of Parliament (a sensible rule meant to prevent unfortunate dynastic allegiances to prevent the kind of situation that occurred under Queen Mary ). Parliament did not consent to this wedding, mainly on moral grounds. Times have changed, and Parliament changed its mind for Camilla. But Parliament could still have refused that union. However, it is with certain stipulations, most important among them is that Camilla will never be Queen (in a way, this is simply a revival of one of the solutions to the 1936 constitutional crisis).

The fact is you can try to pigeon hole something on false grounds for the sake of getting the result you'd like - it doesn't make it any more legal - and on a fundamental level - doing the wrong thing will only spell disaster if there is true force of law and right. Because you will create problems by corrupting the law.

Whatever, William.

You are actually somewhat wrong. They can. There is treaty but treaty has been violated by Britain in the past, and it hasn't altered their ability to exist.

How many times do I have to repeat myself. The Statute of Westminster is in fact two different things; it is a constitutional declaration, binding each Realm, but it also serves as a treaty between the Realms. It is not, in and of itself, a treaty at all, but rather functions like one.

This is only partially true the grounds explicity states that any state may exit the formula.

It is their option to follow the line as it is in Britain or do it their own way.

No, it does not William. Section 41 is very clear.

This is only one half - you are completely ommitting the free choice portion of the agreements.

Constitutions rarely have "free choice" portions to them. That's rather the point of a constitution, to create bedrock laws that cannot simply be altered at convenience.

[William Ashley]

This doesn't even make sense.

Paraphrase: Canada makes its own law. (the Queen of Canada is part of Canada)

It does no such thing. It merely states that the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster are both parts of our constitution, something that pretty much every constitutional scholar will agree with. In fact, though pretty much every aspect of it save Habeas Corpus has been superseded, even the Magna Carta is still part of our constitution.

They are acts of British Parliament, not acts of Canadian Parliament. You are purporting British acts ought to be able to ammend the constitution, but have stated they have no force in Canada. That is a logical fallacy.

Either Canada controls its constitution, or the UK does. Currently you are saying that the UK can ammend the Canadian constitution through acts of UK parliament.

Now you're just being idiotic.

Infante.

Britain purports no such thing over the Act of Settlement.

I just showed a link where their justice minister said it could. You are a liar.

No there are not. Parliament's approval is not required for the succession, because there's an Act of Parliament that already recognizes the succession. Namely, the Act of Settlement 1701.

It isn't a Canadian Act of Parliament. Canada was patriated. Your own comments on the Statute of Westminster and the Patriation totally destroy your comment on the basis of power of law. You are relying on foreign law that is ammendable to determine the Canadian Constitution. This is an essentially flawed basis for a states constitution. As a constitutional monarchy Canada would not be an indepedent state - that is paramount to the patriation establishing Canadian power of law, and with their own Monarch.

The patriation fundamentally changed the Status of Canada in the Commonwealth as of 1982. You are clearly just not knowledgably on the interactions of the Commonwealth the British Crowns, and the force of domestic law.

I can only assume by this point that you're either unwilling of reading what I write, or incapable of comprehending it. Each Realm has its own constitution, separate and independent of the others. However, each Realm shares a number of constitutional precepts and documents; the most important for our purposes being the Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement. It is a bedrock part of all the Realms' constitutions that none can alter the succession

Wrong.. Canada CAN alter the succession. Another lost point. The ruling you stated is the basis of that fact.

without the approval of the others. All the Realms, of course, have the power to amend their constitutions,

You are contradicting yourself.

the amending formulas being anything from the UK and New Zealand, where a simple Act of Parliament is sufficient to amend the constitution through to Canada, where our constitution requires alterations to the nature of the Crown have the approval of both the Federal Parliament and the provinces.

WRONG based on your statements of the act of settlement having force of law in Canada - because ANY change to that act could alter the totality of the Constitution of Canada, as you are stating it as a component of the constitution. They could add anything or take anything away in that act.

You seem to be deeply confused as to my point. I'm not denying that we could sever our relationship with the British Monarchy. What I'm denying is that any single Province or the Federal Parliament alone could.

Any one could cause all to. Basically leave the Federation. Canada can both add and delete provinces to Canada. Understand though

that the nature of the union is that each province has their OWN link to the sovereign and the federation has their own link.

Provincial acts are not passed through the federal government. The executive councils of the provinces are in direct contact with the sovereign - they do not exercise their powers through the federal government - BUT when a conflict arises the COURTS.. also are suppose to (complex) be independent - exercise their power (or are suppose to some judges not of the superior courts do not sit representing the Queen although they are suppose to)- the Provinces can control the provincial courts in their province through the office of the Attorney General - while the Federal courts can do likewise through the Canadian attorney General - The Federal government however has priveleges on some matters of law - likewise the provinces also do - as outlined in the constitution - The constitution is NOT a federal document solely - it is a JOINT provincial and federal document - as the Provinces FORMED A UNION - the federation did not assume the provinces. It was an agreement - determined by the crown as to how their powers in BNA would be distributed. All powers were NOT confired to the Canadian Parliament - as some powers were held by the governor general as well as the Lt. Govenors. Over time however there were some power redistrobutions - and the Federation actually overstepped many of its responsibilities. The provincial legislatures are not mini parliaments they are legislatures of the provinces that coordinate the provincial powers - mostly civil in nature. In the event of a province desiring to leave it could. But the monarch would have to assent - (they are already seperate for their powers) - to assume powers divested in the federation - the constitution would need to be ammended altering the distrobution of powers. They could however unilaterally declare independene also, anyone can - the capacity to uphold a state is another question completely. As far as recognition of the monarch 1. all realms have the choice to recognize the sovereign, it is custom that unanimous consent of be garnered for recognition of a new monarch - in not only the federal parliament but also the provincial legislatures since they garner their powers from the crown and vice versa through allegiance. There is actually a common act read to empower the legislature to act.

In the UK in absence of the monarch the councillors of state act - I am not aware of anyone but the Governor General being a councillor of state in Canada - this may not be the case. The privy council and governement do have some powers in this regard but are subset to parliament and the governor general.

I am also stating here that Parliament does not need to approve each new monarch.

They do.

It (and by It, I mean all the Parliaments in the Realms, who are coeval on this point) could decide to change the succession, toss out a king and name someone else, but it requires all to agree.

They can unilaterally make the choice - treaties can be breached and they have often been in history. Likewise the nature of the commonwealth is a FREE ASSOCIATION.

As it is, our constitution not only states that Queen Elizabeth II is our monarch, it is also part of our constitution that Prince Charles is her heir and our future king.

It doesn't name Charles last I checked. I am not contesting the point that regularity would state that Charles would be first in line if he didn't violate any particular laws - or even in quesiton that if he did would it matter? Especially in Canada would marrying a Roman Catholic make him "less popular" in a Catholic dominated country. End point here is that the nature of the monarchy is broad - as well the nature of British law. There is more than one heir to the throne - Canada does have the capacity to alter their own line of succession independently - this is not to say they would.

Moreover I am not saying the RESULT of non unnaimous acclaim of the new monarch should it ever happen, not saying it will.

But traditionally - NO ONE DISAGREED. Historically when people disagreed it was treasonous and they were either brutally or compasionately murdered or jailed. Canada at this venture however has a very large block of seperatists that some people in Quebec may be upset if their representatives are jailed or killed. The position you are is just to sidestep the issue completely. While reasonable and understandable, the blatant lies and misrepresentation of the NATURE of Canada is very much not the right approach as you have

1. purported the UK parliament controls canada (through capacity to alter UK act of parliament)

2. stated a foreign head of state as having powers over Canada

3. Bound Canada to treaty ABOVE the constitution (corruption of the constitution)

(This is sorta the case but the grounds for you stating this for point 1 is false, point 2 and 3 are just patently false.

Now you're just muddying the waters. The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Realms are two different things. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, much as the Secretary General is the head of the United Nations. In both cases, the office does not entail an impingement on the sovereignty of those nations (save by treaty).

The Commonwealth Realms are separate (though all the Realms are, naturally, members of the Commonwealth of Nations). Unlike the Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth Realms are all constitutional monarchies sharing the same Monarch.

You are wrong here. The commonwealth realms are subset of the commonwealth of nations.

This is not to say that they wounld't de facto exist without the commonwealth of nations, but as it currently stands the de facto reality of the realms is as a compontent of the commonwealth of nations.

Come on William. If you're trying to confuse the situation, I applaud you, but I'm not a moron, and you shouldn't think that I am.

Well you are a liar. infante.

They have the same monarch, but the monarch's position is different in each Realm.

No they are different monarchs - but the same PERSON exercising different duties under different laws. Some laws are the same BUT those laws are different due to interpretation precedence and other laws of force. Law in Canada for instance has a primogency of Canadian Upper court, provincial law ---- COMMONWEALTH LAW - THEN FORMER COMMONWEALTH (USA etc..) for determination of status of interpretation. The upper of each has power over the lower in reasoning the lower is only exercised if it doesn't yet exist at a upper level. Canadian made law has more force than British made law in Canada - and likewise Canadian made law has less power in Britain than in Canada. There are other factors such as temporality and currency.

None the less I DO know what I'm talking about.

And nothing in this is incompatible with what I've said. It's just that to choose someone else to be the sovereign, it would require the Federal Parliament and all the provinces to agree.

You just contradicted my original post and your original rebutal.

If they agreed upon Elizabeth II's death to name someone else Sovereign, then that would constitute an amendment to the constitution; a repudiation of the Statute of Westminster and repeal of the Act of Settlement 1701.

It could.

The Queen is not a subset of Parliament any more than Parliament is a subset of the Queen.

MMhhh no not exaclty, the Queen is part of Parliament - the commons and senate are the other two compoenents of parliament - The Queen exists seperate from parliament also as executive head of state though -fount of honours and paramount of rank (commander of the realm, defender of the faith), and the Highest court of redress

The Queen is the head of state, the Executive if you will. Parliament is the legislative.

The Queen is part of parliament. Hearing a speach from the throne in Canada by the monarch is rare though - normally it is the governor general, who reads from the senate - since by custom the monarch and their representative cannot enter the house of commons.

Parliament chooses a government which then serves at the pleasure of the Queen. The Queen is obligated to take the advice of Her Ministers, and in that way is dependent upon them save in very rare circumstance, but many Parliaments have come and gone in all Her Realms since she came to the throne.

No. The governor general chooses the government in most part by selecting the PM, THEN they usually allow the PM to select their ministers who are sworn in as privy counsellors. (Although the GG can remove ministers or ANY officer of the government - the PM often also has this capacity.

I have no idea what this even means.

To rephrase you state that 300 years ago all this stuff was decided - putting more effort to your act of settlment end all. The point here is that 300 years passed since the act, it has been ammended since then, AND many things new laws and occurences happened sine 1701.

That is completely wrong. Edward VIII abdicated because of staunch opinion at the time that he could not marry a divorcée and remain head of the Church of England. There was incredible controversy over this. One of the solutions offered to Edward VIII was that he and Ms. Simpson could marry, but she would not be Queen and none of their descendants would be in the line of succession. From what I understand, Edward VIII found this intolerable. But another constitutional rule applies here, and that is the Sovereign or those in line of succession cannot marry without the consent of Parliament (a sensible rule meant to prevent unfortunate dynastic allegiances to prevent the kind of situation that occurred under Queen Mary ). Parliament did not consent to this wedding, mainly on moral grounds. Times have changed, and Parliament changed its mind for Camilla. But Parliament could still have refused that union. However, it is with certain stipulations, most important among them is that Camilla will never be Queen (in a way, this is simply a revival of one of the solutions to the 1936 constitutional crisis).

I thought it was because he was pro NAZI? Odd.

Whatever, William.

Whatever. Like Whatever. nice and easy, eh.

Hoser.

How many times do I have to repeat myself. The Statute of Westminster is in fact two different things; it is a constitutional

Its an act of British Parliament to reduce workload.

declaration, binding each Realm, but it also serves as a treaty between the Realms. It is not, in and of itself, a treaty at all, but rather functions like one.

You don't follow. There is a treaty for succession in place that allows a realm to opt into the coeval or independentally determine sucession, existing.

No, it does not William. Section 41 is very clear.

Nein, Nein. Ok post up section 41 already and expalin how it isn't applicable. O O O O

Constitutions rarely have "free choice" portions to them. That's rather the point of a constitution, to create bedrock laws that cannot simply be altered at convenience.

Nah I'm talking about the Commonwealth of Nations - countries freely associate in the Commonwealth. The Queen of Canada is the Queen of Canada - each commonwealth country decides how they would like to treat other members of the commonwealth.

Edited September 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

FYI:

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

[g_bambino]

[T]he Queen is part of Parliament... The Queen exists seperate from parliament also as executive head of state though -fount of honours and paramount of rank (commander of the realm, defender of the faith), and the Highest court of redress

[The Statute of Westminster and Act of Settlement] are acts of British Parliament, not acts of Canadian Parliament.... Your own comments on the Statute of Westminster and the Patriation totally destroy your comment on the basis of power of law. You are relying on foreign law...

Canada CAN alter the succession.

So, your position is that Canada is presently a constitutional monarchy and the constitution makes the monarch a part of parliament, but parliament can still function constitutionally without a sovereign between the death of one and parliament's approval of the next, which must be done because Canada has no laws governing succession and certainly no requirement to have its monarch be the same person who is sovereign of the other Commonwealth Realms.

How do you explain, then, Canada's amendment of the Statute of Westminster in 1982? Or the fact that there's no record of any vote in parliament approving of Elizabeth II's accession as Queen of Canada?

I just showed a link where their justice minister said it could. You are a liar.

And you are incompetent. From your own link: "Change can only be brought about by not just the UK but all realms where Her Majesty is Queen making a decision to change... Altering the Act of Succession must be approved by the governments where the Queen is the constitutional monarch and sovereign..."

Now, doesn't that sound just like what the Ontario judge said about Canada?

[William Ashley]

So, your position is that Canada is presently a constitutional monarchy

That's the general concensus.

and the constitution makes the monarch a part of parliament,

"Formally, the body consists of the Canadian monarch—represented by her governor general—the Senate, and the House of Commons, each element having its own officers and organisation."

The Queen can perform any act the governor general can though.

but parliament can still function constitutionally without a sovereign

Some functions. Letters patents and other sign constitute the powers capacitating function in leui of personage.

between the death of one and parliament's approval of the next

More or less. To give a straight answer. The death of a monarch does not end their reign, the assumption of power by someone else does. They need not die for assumption to occur it can be passed on etc.. There are system in the UK and Canada to allow continuance of governance in the event of loss of personage of the monarch.

, which must be done because Canada has no laws governing succession

Canada does have law concerning succession.

and certainly no requirement to have its monarch be the same person who is sovereign of the other Commonwealth Realms.

What do you mean by requirement?

How do you explain, then, Canada's amendment of the Statute of Westminster in 1982?

By all means supply information on this.

Or the fact that there's no record of any vote in parliament approving of Elizabeth II's accession as Queen of Canada?

Check the hansards. Unless they got to them first.

And you are incompetent.

Suck it.

From your own link: "Change can only be brought about by not just the UK but all realms where Her Majesty is Queen making a decision to change... Altering the Act of Succession must be approved by the governments where the Queen is the constitutional monarch and sovereign..."

Post it ALL UP..not just something out of context. Then I'll respond. I'm requesting you read the whole thing.

Now, doesn't that sound just like what the Ontario judge said about Canada?

No. It is similar, but not identical.

In the case of a demise of the crown, the Privy Council—together with the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the Aldermen of the City of London and representatives of Commonwealth nations—makes a proclamation declaring the accession of the new Sovereign and receives an oath from the new monarch relating to the security of the Church of Scotland, as required by law. It is also customary for the new Sovereign to make an allocution to the Privy Council on that occasion, and the Sovereign's speech is published in the London Gazette. That special assembly of the Privy Council and others held to proclaim the accession of the new Sovereign and to receive the required statutory oath from the monarch, is known as an Accession Council. The last such meetings were held on 6 February and 8 February 1952. Given that Her present Majesty was abroad when the last Demise of the Crown took place, the Accession Council had to meet twice, once to proclaim the Sovereign (meeting of 6 February 1952), and then, after the new Queen had arrived in Britain, to receive from Her the oath required by statute (meeting of 8 February 1952).[60]

" In Canada the Queen's Privy Council for Canada meets in Ottawa to perform the same functions."

The Succession to the Crown Act 1707 provides that in the event of the demise of the Crown, Parliament, if adjourned or prorogued, must meet as soon as possible and if sitting must immediately proceed to act without any summons in the usual form

At the first meeting of Parliament under a new monarch there is no speech from the Throne. All Members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords take an oath of allegiance to the new Sovereign. The House votes an Address to the Crown in response to the official notification of the previous monarch's demise, expressing condolences upon the death of the previous monarch and loyalty to his or her successor.

more to follow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_(medieval)

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

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/08/oath-of-allegiance-and-crown-in.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_and_Parliament_Recognition_Act_1689

Edited September 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Some functions. Letters patents and other sign constitute the powers capacitating function in leui of personage.

Letters Patent have zero to do with parliament.

The death of a monarch does not end their reign

Suck it.

In other words: I'm right.

[William Ashley]

Letters Patent have zero to do with parliament.

Except for its ability function as an institution within the legal framework of the state.

It doesn't. In olden days for example it took time for word to spread about the death of the monarch. People still exercised duties that were legal even though the monarch was dead. It is not until the office of the monarch is assumed by someone else

that the source of powers have a distinct new identity. There are traditions that are hardly even known or utilized these days in regard to how the monarchy ACTUALLY funtions. Such as the various stages of assumption - declarations - guided reign - coronation. The King doesn't immediately start exercising all powers themself, they do so with assistance of their house - and of their house various officers of state who are and continue to give guidance in utilization of powers. Many of those powers through patent have previously been invested in those offices, and given royal perogative to act of their own accord, although when possible they consult with the monarch. These are things you are blindly ignorant of, albeit they on the basis of tradition exist. The real thing that will make a republic is loss of exercise of traditional rites and laws. True things can be changed, but all that stuff exists for a reason. Even though mass communication enables lightspeed communication these days, sometimes mass communication isn't the best method of communication.

It took tremendous periods of time to alter the legal instruments of rule in the olden days of Canada - such as the seals of the various territories.

The privy council is in large part the extended life of those royal offices in Canada as the Canadian PC as far as I am aware hasn't sought to set up a linear system - so it IS IMPOSSIBLE for Canada to proceed with investment of the next monarch in the same way until it sets up linear institutions of the monarchy in Canada. Or appoints the British PC and Officers as also the Canadian PC and officers since PC can only give advice on their realm to their monarch.

British PC can't give advice on Canada to the Canadian Monarch, only Canadian PC can due to division of powers.

I'm geussing most of this might just be ignored but it is more or less the legal situation... and is somewhat important. As it directly relates to rites.

In other words: I'm right.

You can think that. - notwithstanding

Edited September 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Except for its ability function as an institution within the legal framework of the state.

Nope. There are no letters patent allowing for parliament to function without one of its three parts. Think otherwise? Prove it.

It is not until the office of the monarch is assumed by someone else

that the source of powers have a distinct new identity.

And has been explained to you ad infinitum, the office of monarch is assumed by someone else immediately upon the death of the previous occupant.

[Hazeleyes]

I'm in favour. Any monarchists on the bench? I'll argue, and happily explain why you're wrong.

I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it. Why the heck is that foreign face on our money anyway?

I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians.

So, is Canada a "real" country?

It taxes its citizens and sends its young men and women to die in foreign wars and all without the queens sayso - does that make it a real country. But I am curious how closely would a federal republic of canada resemble the US?

[William Ashley]

Nope. There are no letters patent allowing for parliament to function without one of its three parts. Think otherwise? Prove it.

What is it doing? When is it getting together? When will a session end? etc.. The GG does all those things on behalf of the queen as issued in letters patent. All parliament can do without the crown is talk to one another and exercise within the law powers as existing. Parliament has some powers - but the commons and senate have thier specific powers. Understand the GG is part of parliament and the head of the executive. The commons and senate are primarily legislative orgganizations but their law must be assented. The cabinet passes orders in council in consult with the officer of the crown - usually the GG (they are suppose to - this is more complex to explain though - legally speaking)

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/LettersPatent.html

And has been explained to you ad infinitum, the office of monarch is assumed by someone else immediately upon the death of the previous occupant.

It may be but this does not effect the continuance of issues and the power of the crown - where the powers of the monarch in state are divested and drawn - the crown is not assumed until rites have been performed, and lawful exercise is assured.

There are spiritual and temporal powers.

start here:

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

then

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gelasius1.html

Did you know LMKing actually conducted seances for some time with former PM's, family members etc..

http://books.google.ca/books?id=f4WKm-aLQW8C&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=spiritual+power+temporal&source=bl&ots=7qxGjNtKe4&sig=tPyoicrilXYDXxDo10KTgOCw3W8&hl=en&ei=KLWBTOu8Acrcngf8x518&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=spiritual%20power%20temporal&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=zilC-DOM484C&printsec=frontcover&dq=temporal+powers&source=bl&ots=9d_MJaBC8U&sig=92kS38nQca_oeuPzwQLtCfBWt_Q&hl=en&ei=I7aBTKMnwp-dB9Cj0cEB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=temporal%20powers&f=false

Just how exactly do you think law holds force or new laws are drawn into being?

Aside from the time delay isssue - how does one define - dead?

People can be brought back to life these days after "dying" it is called resuscitation -- is that to say as soon as a monarch happened to die - the successor would take over? What happens to the previous monarch when they are resussitated.... how much time must elapse etc... is it the coroner who pronounces them dead.. a preist, who?

Just how long does the heart have to beat before involuntary abdication? Hmm..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1306283/Miracle-premature-baby-declared-dead-doctors-revived-mothers-touch.html

Is that to say then that our hearts beat in supremecy if we happen to be closely enough related and we time it right some of us get the chance to be the monarch for a nanosecond or shorter time if we are lucky enough to time it just right? Or do monarchs constantly hyperventelate to maximize their uptime.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_longest_time_a_person_has_been_in_cardiac_arrest_or_dead_and_then_brought_back_to_life

This is probably putting this into KOOOOOK land but

http://www.mindjustice.org/emr13.htm

Not likely but these things could be done these days. Is that to say an attack of some sort (and potentially more possible as time continues to some enthropic and redundant threshold) happens and the monarch recovers they would loose their sovreignty due to heart attack and defibrillation?

The issue of FALSE declaration of death is always on the table - can just any doctor pronounce someone dead and pass on the powers of state? Clearly there must be some greater threshold of assumption of power.

Some doctor going around - I pronounce you dead - long live the king? --- are we to my relatives yet?? NEXT. I pronounce you dead.. long live the king. Just think what a group of doctors might accomplish (sorry I know this is little much) but hopefully it accentuates the point - even if an overthrow of the monarchy wasn't on the table by false legal declarations of death (and what threat of criminal prosecution when you put in power the person holding the perogative of mercy) - one still has to question how is it AS SOON AS THEY DIE IT PASSES THE SUCCESSOR stuff really the case these days, hmm. It clearly ins't an absolute - or are you still on about that?

Another case:

take for example

http://www.diyspy.co.uk/WhenIsAMissingPersonPresumedDead.html

So is that to say if the monarch went Missing the decalaration of death would take 7 years as is statuted in the UK?

Counsellors of state would rule in the UK, but in Canada only the GG... and some reserve powers would go to who?????? legally theere would be no sucession --- the privy council itself would effectively I presume take the role of consellors of state unless they were also installed in Canada.. BUT no law exists this way does it?

So would Canada simply have a missing monarch for 7 years? I know I know it probably isn't likely the queen will be 'lost' any time soon, but what if, hmm oughten the law take that to account potentials even if proposterous. (It happened to osama)

Can you see it now - queens flight lost in bermuda triangle.

{Totally OFF TOPIC- if EMR works not just for stopping hearts - what about the energy output of blackholes - or LHC size energy sucking at 41 PJ/year 11.4 TWh think of the field capacities of something of that size.. (and no I'm not saying the large hadron colider is a giant mind control device) also it is possible to actually teleport particles - don't beleive me but it has been academically noted since about 2001 - with proton beaming - the technological and future technological capacities present quite the world -seeing things from a very low level isn't going to prepare you nor support your argument in full - here is something from 2006 http://digg.com/news/science/Scientists_teleport_two_photons}

True and I ought say god save... that it is more likely a monarch just to die in an accident or of some non reviving ailment - but look how long they kept the pope alive.

As wierd as it seems people at the unviersity of waterloo were doing beaming experiments also.... in part coordinated with the perimiter institute - where stephen hawking has brought some more attention to in the media as of late. These weird outer space like technologies are at the forefront these days it is not to say how accessible they will bei n communicatoins and other systems in the years to come -- distance based defibrillators (both weapon and medical device) sublight communications systems .. using qunatum beaming for "secure quantum packet inner cereberal communication)

They were talking about some of these appliations openly in the 70's there is no telling where this stuff is on the downlow 40 years later.

The technological threat in "non normative" monarch situation is something that will only increase as time goes on.

It is very difficult to imagine the monarch just disapeaering but what about mechanical issues on a plane for instance not likely but probably in the realm of possibility even if lotto odds, lottos still get won.

-------

The very long point - and I will definately end it there is - there are many scenarios that do not fit the the king is dead long live the king situation these days... and what exactly happens then.

Canada has no such bans I am aware of on using or developing those weapon/technologies either...

fact is though lets keep this in the "sane" realm -- the possibility of resusitation or disapearance is there -- not likely with the military following her around etc.. but in some far fetched reality there might be some type of situation that could develope now (or in the future)

OK now the ad hominem. - no needles please.

Edited September 4, 2010 by William Ashley