Jump to content

The Federal Republic of Canada


Canada as a federal republic  

114 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Understand the GG is part of parliament and the head of the executive.

Wrong. Constitution Act 1867, S.17: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." You have still failed to present any letters patent allowing parliament to function without one of its component parts.

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

It's a scenario so preposterous it barely merits any attention, but in the UK a regent would likely be installed until the missing sovereign was declared legally dead, at which time the next in the line of succession would take the throne. A regency in Britain does seem like it would cause some problems in Canada, but a missing person is also declared dead here after seven years; during that time, the governor general would continue to represent the sovereign, who's presumed to still exist.

[T]he crown is not assumed until rites have been performed, and lawful exercise is assured.

And you have still failed to provide any supporting cite for this assertion; your meandering rambles and original research do not constitute proof.

[+]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Constitution Act 1867, S.17: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons."

Letters patent are issued under the prerogative powers of the head of state ("royal prerogative"). They constitute a rare, if significant, form of legislation without the consent of the parliament. Letters patent may also be used to grant assent to legislation. The link I showed, demonstrates the more recent letters patent on the powers of the GG.

You have still failed to present any letters patent allowing parliament to function without one of its component parts.

Although it can function on the basis of letters patent with solely the Queen and Privy Council - apparently - I wasn't asked to do this until this point - previously you stated the Queen wasn't part of parliament. Stating myself then the letters patent was done to demonstrate that the power to summon parliament, or end sessions was within the powers of the third part of parliament. The GG is like a CEO in that manner. You can say that only the managing directors are part of the board but the CEO and President are also components.

"Palriaments cheif authority is to direct taxation" and little else. The monarch over time invested parliament to develope laws of their own to manage civil affairs that previously came from the courts and the common law (eventually they acted in open defiance and eventually lobbed the head of their monarch off - and britain had a republic - or rather protectorate of the people). IN th old day the manor courts and nobel courts determined their own powers based in part on status quo ante - with the monarch as the court of appeal, since all had oaths to the monarch either direct to their superior - there are very few exceptions. The invention of parliament created "a house of commons" but this was to affect taxation of the people - by popular support. It developed from there. In Canada the provinces set thier own laws under the guidance of the executive councils - people were actively bared from parliament in the early days, and if business was not to the liking the government could be canned and elections called. To say the least all power stems from the monarch parliament is a structure of appeasement to the commons. This is not to say the rights of man such as equality do not exist, but within the frame work of state, if we are citizens we owe loyalty and thus pour our very soul into the wellbeing of the state - although anyone can be a state unto themself, they may be deemed criminal if contrary to the existing law of any state they are in contact with or within the reach of - hence the concept of overalpping jurisdiction and states of peace and war. Complex though but how does parliament function without its parts -- wtih whatever parts with function remain, clearly.

It's a scenario so preposterous it barely merits any attention

Yet there are laws for Canadians who attack their own government? How is a terrorist attack more likely to occur to a military base or military equipment than a commercial airliner carrying the monarch - when the monarch ought, I would think, be one of the highest priiority targets of a terrorist organization attacking Canada?

but in the UK a regent would likely be installed until the missing sovereign was declared legally dead, at which time the next in the line of succession would take the throne. A regency in Britain does seem like it would cause some problems in Canada, but a missing person is also declared dead here after seven years; during that time, the governor general would continue to represent the sovereign, who's presumed to still exist.

What hat are you pulling this out of. Why is it you think a regent would be put in place - where is there legal grounds for this? - And what if the Governor General died befor those 7 years?

And you have still failed to provide any supporting cite for this assertion; your meandering rambles and original research do not constitute proof.

[+]

You clearly didn't read my links throughout this thread. For instance one rite to be performed is the oath to protect the church of Scotland. Investiture is part of assumption of the crown. There is a difference between the crown and the monarch. The monarch doesn't assume full powers until they have assumed the crown. A monarchs lawful authority can be questioned if there are grounds. Unanimous consent is required in part to this because it amounts to high treason as open defiance against the would belawful authority. Not swearing allegiance is a form of attempting to overthrow the government, as Canada is currently "at war" (although not really since it isn't at war with a state), it would constitute high treason. None the less MP's are like Barons - for them not to swear their oath they would have to vacate their seats.

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

http://pages.infinit.net/cerame/heraldicamerica/etudes/cromwell.htm

CANADA WAS AT ONCE A REPUBLIC ALREADY.. but far befor Canada was Canada/

http://www.hereditarytitles.com/Page31.html

You can see it under cromwells arms - that is if you recognize acts of parliament ect.. of that time to be legal under his authority as a deposer. The only difference in arms tended to be however that he didn't claim to be king of France, not again seen until 1801.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Constitution Act 1867, S.17: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." You have still failed to present any letters patent allowing parliament to function without one of its component parts.

Back from my little trip. You make an excellent point, and as I pointed out previously it was precisely this conundrum that faced the Convention Parliament during the Glorious Revolution. The Bill of Rights, 1689 was passed without Royal Assent, and Parliament, keen to legitimize what amounted to a new constitution had to play some fancy legal footwork, mainly because the last legitimate monarch, James II, had fled to the Continent, thus taking the Prerogative of Assent with him. Parliament had declared his action an effective abdication, and thus key legislation passed during this period, in particular the Bill of Rights (to my mind, next to the Magna Carta, the single most important document in our constitutional heritage, and one that even as late as the Rights conflict in Parliament earlier this year still plays an enormous role in our system of government).

The conundrum for the Convention Parliament was twofold; firstly it had not been summoned, and legally was not a Parliament at all (this particular convention no longer applies in most if not all the Realms because of constitutional requirements to meet at least once a year) and secondly that none of the bills it had passed had received Royal Assent (which is still a constitutional requirement). So a bit of a legal game was played. When William and Mary took the throne, they assed the Crown and Parliament Recognition Bill which retroactively gave assent to the Bill of Rights, 1689 (acceptance of the Bill of Rights had been key to William and Mary even accepting the throne).

From what I can tell, William's theory fails on two points:

1. He seems to believe that Parliament must recognize the new Monarch. This is rather like saying that Parliament has to recognize each utterance of free speech. In both cases, our constitution, both unwritten and codified conventions, in fact state that the heir to the throne instantly upon the death of the old Monarch becomes Monarch in turn ("The King is dead! Long live the King!") This is hardly limited to the Commonwealth Realms, and is a feature of many monarchical systems, developed in large part to prevent the kinds of succession crises that had so often plagued the Roman Empire.

2. That pre-Constitution Act, 1982 constitutional documents no longer apply. I'm surmising this one, because he seems to think pretty much anything prior to 1982 no longer has the weight of constitutional dictate to it. This is a very republican view of a constitution. Certainly in places like France and the United States, when a new constitution is promulgated, it inherently replaces the old constitution (though, oddly enough, not always the laws, as many aspects of the Napoleonic Code still apply in France and the Common Law still applies in many US states). But that does not apply in our constitutional system, and has not applied since at least the promulgation of the Magna Carta, and I'd argue even earlier. While some constitutional arrangements and powers, to be sure, may over time fall into disuse and eventually be viewed as extinct, in our system no constitutional alteration automatically overrides an older one unless it is explicitly stated to do so. Hence the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is still an inherent part of our constitution, though it predates even the BNA Act, 1867, and this was demonstrated by the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw ruling in 1997, that relied upon the Proclamation's requirements for dealing with the Indian peoples to demonstrate that Aboriginal Title had never been extinguished by the colonial government of British Columbia (as was the Province's assertion). By William's logic, the Supreme Court erred, but clearly the Court, being fully cognizant that our constitution is much more expansive than simply the Constitution Act, 1982 or even the British North America Act, 1867.

In fact, as further evidence, we need only see the way in which the Senate can be stacked by way of Section 27 of the British North America Act. When Mulroney added Senators in 1990, he advised the Queen directly to invoke the clause and thus gained enough Senators to get past the Liberal deadlock in the Senate over the GST legislation. Under William's theory, this would be unlawful, but of course it is not, because the BNA Act, 1867 was not extinguished by the Constitution Act, 1982. Only those sections of the BNA Act which had either been extinguished by previous legislation or by new clauses in the Constitution Act, 1982 would be extinguished, a key principle of our organic constitutional system.

That being the case, the Statute of Westminster is an integral part of our constitution, as is the Act of Settlement, 1701. Parliament can deny someone the throne, but the Statue of Westminster would require all the Realms to agree, and the Act of Settlement and the older more organic elements dealing with our system of primogeniture dictate who Parliament could name to the throne in that candidate or removed monarch's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Letters patent are issued under the prerogative powers of the head of state.

Who cares? I asked you to show me the letters patent that allow parliament to function without one of its three parts.

previously you stated the Queen wasn't part of parliament.

Really? Link to where I said that, please.

Investiture is part of assumption of the crown.

A coronation is only a traditional ceremony that illustrates in physical form and with pageantry the fact that a new sovereign had previously assumed the throne at the precise moment the predeceasing monarch died. You still haven't provided evidence to the contrary - a document outlining the necessity for votes in parliament, a record of any such vote ever taking place, or even how such a vote by an incomplete parliament could be considered valid - and I've already said more than once that your theories and original research do not constitute proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coronation is only a traditional ceremony that illustrates in physical form and with pageantry the fact that a new sovereign had previously assumed the throne at the precise moment the predeceasing monarch died. You still haven't provided evidence to the contrary - a document outlining the necessity for votes in parliament, a record of any such vote ever taking place, or even how such a vote by an incomplete parliament could be considered valid - and I've already said more than once that your theories and original research do not constitute proof.

If a coronation and Parliamentary consent were required then Edward VIII would not have been King. There would have been some sort of interregnum between George V and George VI. Of course, William's claim is sheer garbage. Edward VIII was King, required no coronation nor any approval of Parliament, because his position as heir to George V was already established by the constitution. In fact, he had to abdicate and, for the first time, the requirement of the Statute of Westminster that all the Realms be in agreement as to Edward's signing of the instruments of abdication, and to his heirs being removed from the line of succession and George VI made King and Princess Elizabeth put in the line of succession.. If Edward had not been King none of this would have been necessary. By William's silly claim, Parliament could just have declared George VI king and been done with it.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares?

people who care?

I asked you to show me the letters patent that allow parliament to function without one of its three parts.

Ok as I explained privy council (not just cabinet, although more so as of late cabinet), is comprised of a PM selected by the governor general. This is a nominal role not a titular role. They are seen as the organizer of privy council aside from the governor general as oversight, as to comprise an executive council to be cheif ministers. After giving oaths of office - that is comrpise a government.

In terms of the documents - I'm eager just to say - read all the royal proclamations.

Once upon a time there was the Royal Proclamation of 1763. There is a lot more background, and I'm not exactly a professor of law here.

Whereas We have taken into Our Royal Consideration the extensive and valuable Acquisitions in America, secured to our Crown by the late Definitive Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris the 10th Day of February last; and being desirous that all Our loving Subjects, as well of our Kingdom as of our Colonies in America, may avail themselves with all convenient Speed, of the great Benefits and Advantages which must accrue therefrom to their Commerce, Manufactures, and Navigation, We have thought fit, with the Advice of our Privy Council. to issue this our Royal Proclamation, hereby to publish and declare to all our loving Subjects, that we have, with the Advice of our Said Privy Council, granted our Letters Patent, under our Great Seal of Great Britain, to erect, within the Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us by the said Treaty, Four distinct and separate Governments, styled and called by the names of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada, and limited and bounded as follows, viz.

First--The Government of Quebec bounded on the Labrador Coast by the River St. John, and from thence by a Line drawn from the Head of that River through the Lake St. John, to the South end of the Lake Nipissing; from whence the said Line, crossing the River St. Lawrence, and the Lake Champlain, in 45. Degrees of North Latitude, passes along the High Lands which divide the Rivers that empty themselves into the said River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Sea; and also along the North Coast of the Baye des Châleurs, and the Coast of the Gulph of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosières, and from thence crossing the Mouth of the River St. Lawrence by the West End of the Island of Anticosti, terminates at the aforesaid River of St. John.

Secondly--The Government of East Florida, bounded to the Westward by the Gulph of Mexico and the Apalachicola River; to the Northward by a Line drawn from that part of the said River where the Chatahouchee and Flint Rivers meet, to the source of St. Mary's River. and by the course of the said River to the Atlantic Ocean; and to the Eastward and Southward by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulph of Florida, including all Islands within Six Leagues of the Sea Coast.

Thirdly--The Government of West Florida, bounded to the Southward by the Gulph of Mexico, including all Islands within Six Leagues of the Coast; from the River Apalachicola to Lake Pontchartrain; to the Westward by the said Lake, the Lake Maurepas, and the River Mississippi; to the Northward by a Line drawn due East from that part of the River Mississippi which lies in 31 Degrees North Latitude. to the River Apalachicola or Chatahouchee; and to the Eastward by the said River.

Fourthly--The Government of Grenada, comprehending the Island of that name, together with the Grenadines, and the Islands of Dominico, St. Vincent's and Tobago. And to the end that the open and free Fishery of our Subjects may be extended to and carried on upon the Coast of Labrador, and the adjacent Islands. We have thought fit, with the advice of our said Privy Council to put all that Coast, from the River St. John's to Hudson's Streights, together with the Islands of Anticosti and Madelaine, and all other smaller Islands lying upon the said Coast, under the care and Inspection of our Governor of Newfoundland.

We have also, with the advice of our Privy Council. thought fit to annex the Islands of St. John's [now Prince Edward Island] and Cape Breton, or Isle Royale, with the lesser Islands adjacent thereto, to our Government of Nova Scotia.

We have also, with the advice of our Privy Council aforesaid, annexed to our Province of Georgia all the Lands Iying between the Rivers Alatamaha and St. Mary's.

New Governments to have General Assemblies

and Make Laws

And whereas it will greatly contribute to the speedy settling of our said new Governments, that our loving Subjects should be informed of our Paternal care, for the security of the Liberties and Properties of those who are and shall become Inhabitants thereof, We have thought fit to publish and declare, by this Our Proclamation, that We have, in the Letters Patent under our Great Seal of Great Britain, by which the said Governments are constituted, given express Power and Direction to our Governors of our Said Colonies respectively, that so soon as the state and circumstances of the said Colonies will admit thereof, they shall, with the Advice and Consent of the Members of our Council, summon and call General Assemblies within the said Governments respectively, in such Manner and Form as is used and directed in those Colonies and Provinces in America which are under our immediate Government: And We have also given Power to the said Governors, with the consent of our Said Councils, and the Representatives of the People so to be summoned as aforesaid, to make, constitute, and ordain Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances for the Public Peace, Welfare, and good Government of our said Colonies, and of the People and Inhabitants thereof, as near as may be agreeable to the Laws of England, and under such Regulations and Restrictions as are used in other Colonies; and in the mean Time, and until such Assemblies can be called as aforesaid [see Campbell v. Hall (1774), 1 Cowp. 204, 98 E.R. 1045], all Persons Inhabiting in or resorting to our Said Colonies may confide in our Royal Protection for the Enjoyment of the Benefit of the Laws of our Realm of England; for which Purpose We have given Power under our Great Seal to the Governors of our said Colonies respectively to erect and constitute, with the Advice of our said Councils respectively, Courts of Judicature and public Justice within our Said Colonies for hearing and determining all Causes, as well Criminal as Civil, according to Law and Equity, and as near as may be agreeable to the Laws of England, with Liberty to all Persons who may think themselves aggrieved by the Sentences of such Courts, in all Civil Cases, to appeal, under the usual Limitations and Restrictions, to Us in our Privy Council.

Note: English laws were not globally acceptable in Quebec, especially in matters of "property and civil rights". The The Quebec Act, 1774 reinstated French civil law to apply in respect of such matters and the phrase survives in section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The American colonists, however, viewed the extension of the territory of Quebec with alarm and described the French legal regime, then not codified as it is today, as an "arbitrary system of laws" .

Grants for Settlement

We have also thought fit, with the advice of our Privy Council as aforesaid, to give unto the Governors and Councils of our said Three new Colonies upon the Continent, full Power and Authority to settle and agree with the Inhabitants of our said new Colonies or with any other Persons who shall resort thereto, for such Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments, as are now or hereafter shall be in our Power to dispose of; and them to grant to any such Person or Persons upon such Terms, and under such moderate Quit-Rents, Services and Acknowledgments, as have been appointed and settled in our other Colonies, and under such other Conditions as shall appear to us to be necessary and expedient for the Advantage of the Grantees, and the Improvement and settlement of our said Colonies.

Soldier Settlement

And Whereas, We are desirous, upon all occasions, to testify our Royal Sense and Approbation of the Conduct and bravery of the Officers and Soldiers of our Armies, and to reward the same, We do hereby command and impower our Governors of our said Three new Colonies, and all other our Governors of our several Provinces on the Continent of North America, to grant without Fee or Reward, to such reduced Officers as have served in North America during the late War, and to such Private Soldiers as have been or shall be disbanded in America, and are actually residing there, and shall personally apply for the same, the following Quantities of Lands, subject, at the Expiration of Ten Years, to the same Quit-Rents as other Lands are subject to in the Province within which they are granted, as also subject to the same Conditions of Cultivation and Improvement; viz.

To every Person having the Rank of a Field Officer--5,000 Acres.

To every Captain--3,000 Acres.

To every Subaltern or Staff Officer,--2,000 Acres.

To every Non-Commission Officer,--200 Acres.

To every Private Man--50 Acres.

We do likewise authorize and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our said Colonies upon the Continent of North America to grant the like Quantities of Land, and upon the same conditions, to such reduced Officers of our Navy of like Rank as served on board our Ships of War in North America at the times of the Reduction of Louisbourg and Quebec in the late War, and who shall personally apply to our respective Governors for such Grants.

The Indian Provisons

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds -- We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida. or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. as described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government, they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do, by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever, provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside, and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit, by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade:

And we do hereby authorize, enjoin, and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our Colonies respectively, as well those under Our immediate Government as those under the Government and Direction of Proprietaries, to grant such Licences without Fee or Reward, taking especial Care to insert therein a Condition, that such Licence shall be void, and the Security forfeited in case the Person to whom the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to observe such Regulations as We shall think proper to prescribe as aforesaid.

And we do further expressly conjoin and require all Officers whatever, as well Military as those Employed in the Management and Direction of Indian Affairs, within the Territories reserved as aforesaid for the use of the said Indians, to seize and apprehend all Persons whatever, who standing charged with Treason, Misprisions of Treason, Murders, or other Felonies or Misdemeanors, shall fly from Justice and take Refuge in the said Territory, and to send them under a proper guard to the Colony where the Crime was committed, of which they stand accused, in order to take their Trial for the same.

Given at our Court at St. James's the 7th Day of October 1763, in the Third Year of our Reign.

GOD SAVE THE KING

Really? Link to where I said that, please.

Its back a few pages.

A coronation is only a traditional ceremony

Yes and arguing in a room full of chairs and signing peices of paper are traditional ceremonies also, what is your point?

that illustrates in physical form and with pageantry the fact that a new sovereign had previously assumed the throne at the precise moment the predeceasing monarch died.

No that is not a requirement. There have been issues with that type of definition in the past, and it clear IS NOT the law (just from common sense, common law and natural law). This is why ceremonies - consecrate the powers - so as to affirm them and give them support. Generally speaking the desired outcome of those loyal to the person, should their wishes be, and it follows any allegiance in full knowledge whether known or unknown.

You still haven't provided evidence to the contrary - a document outlining the necessity for votes in parliament,

It is fuedal. What good is a government that isn't loyal? If it doesn't follow your instructions - is it your government? Think about it. Also I've read the books already and it is. Unfortunately I'm not in Ottawa or London and the libraries here are thin, and the internet doesn't have all records online.

a record of any such vote ever taking place,

I'll still take a look online but I can't find what isn't posted. Once again though I have read it in text previously.

or even how such a vote by an incomplete parliament could be considered valid - and I've already said more than once that your theories and original research do not constitute proof.

Parliament has a set quorum.

See here...

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, a quorum of 20 Members, including the Speaker, is required to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers. [5] This constitutional requirement is reiterated in the Standing Orders, which also set out the procedure to be followed in cases where the House lacks a quorum. [6] Although there have been several attempts to increase the size of quorum, it has remained unchanged since Confederation. [7] Modern-day demands on Members time are such that attending the sittings of the House is only one of many duties. Party whips have thus traditionally been responsible, through the use of roster systems, for ensuring that the required number of Members is present to maintain the quorum.

You simply don't understand.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW nova scotia was a barony. That was lorded.

Then it goes to the origin of the lords, the origin of the assemblies, the origin of the commons yada yada... that goes back and back and back and back. It would take a book to explain this all.

see also

http://www.electricscotland.com/canada/fraser/baronets_novascotia.htm

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See also:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch05&Seq=3&Lang=E

Eg. The Govenor General Operates under the letters patents that grant their powers

The houses operate under their standing orders.

The GG can summon or disolve parliament

and when they are assembled - they operate under the standing orders

there is more to it than that but that is the short answer.

ex. for the commons http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch05&Seq=3&Lang=E

Then the privy council an order in council from whatever source?

However the Queen could only rule alone if she was a Privy Councillor for Canada - eg. If charles was made a Privy counsellor for Canada and then assumed the crown he could probably rule dictorally legally.

QPC is comprised by The Constitution Act, 1867, outlines that persons are to be summoned and appointed for life to the Queen's Privy Council by the governor general.

However the Prime Minister in their role of being the best person to "form government" is usually the point person on this process.

Note the PM is NOT the executive head of government the Governor General is when the queen isn't around.

The PM is "chief minister of the crown"

I should remind you that the monarch is not always the crown. But once assuming the crown they exerise its powers in addition to the powers of the monarchy.

Oddly many of the "holdings of the monarchy" were striped when the king abdicated and vested in the crown - but not all holdings and thus capacities are removed.

Although the traditional rights are not necisarily recognized by the current government as they opt not to follow customary law (and thus are in some respect in rebellion due to forgetting the old law due to non use) It is just problematic of the powers of tradition being ignored by those who do not understand them or are in defiance of rule of law.

In this respect the "crown" and the monarchs have changed - and when this has happened different rules and laws came into force - conflicting or removing previous laws.

Some laws set time limits on the recognition of the law - usually during deposation. It very much then makes things more complex in force of law due to rule of law beign overturned - so this is issued in martial force vs. status quo ante

It gets far more complex .... yet perhaps relevant to the topic.

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

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

It just gets stupid cause they all married each other and tossed titles around like hot potatoes.

None the less the point is that they administer their own affairs but there is an hierarchy. It gets far more complex.

Take the US commonwealth for instance

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

primogeniture is just part of the complexity but it is ancient. The nature of jurisdiction and control of domain just adds to the complexity.

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

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the documents - I'm eager just to say - read all the royal proclamations.

As I thought: you can't provide any letters patent that permit parliament to function without one of its three parts. Ergo, what you suggest is illegal.

it clear IS NOT the law (just from common sense, common law and natural law).

It is part of the law. As I pointed out from the Constitution Act 1867, S.17: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." As long as Canada has a parliament, Canada cannot be without a sovereign. S.9: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." As long as Canada has a government, Canada cannot be without a sovereign. From the Act of Settlement: "the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms... shall be, remain, and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants." Unless excluded by a special constitutional amendment, the Crown ''always'' belongs to the closest living Protestant heir of Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (without the pre-approval of an incomplete paraliament or a coronation, as demonstrated by the accession and abdication of Edward VIII, the example you keep ignoring). The line of succssion is set. Ergo, what you suggest is illegal.

Its back a few pages.

I asked you to link to it.

You simply don't understand.

No, I don't understand why you insist on ignoring the hard evidence in front of your face in favour of your own slapped together, illogical fantasies.

[c/e]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that if the members don't swear allegiance he isn't their monarch.

http://doucetfamily.org/heritage/Oath.htm

Traditionally members can be removed for apostacy of the monarch.

oh just thought I'd add..

Until 1973 beheading was still in force for high treason.

although... hmm it hasn't been repealed in Canada.... .hmmm.... hmm...

funny one here too

The Alien Act which made it an offence for anyone to have left the province after July 1812 for the United States.

Wonder when this one was repealed?

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the second matter, the judges unanimously agreed that constitutional conventions exist in Canada, and a majority found that the federal government's plan to seek the amendment of the Constitution without provincial consent did indeed violate such a convention. However, that majority also argued that it was not the role of the courts to enforce constitutional conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_(political_custom)

.

cum grano salis

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I thought: you can't provide any letters patent that permit parliament to function without one of its three parts. Ergo, what you suggest is illegal.

Writing to an illiterate person serves little purpose. The only other excuse is marked mental deformaty.

It is part of the law. As I pointed out from the Constitution Act 1867, S.17: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." As long as Canada has a parliament, Canada cannot be without a sovereign.

You have a wonderful way of being banal in a completely inane comment.

I could argue this point but it would lay at the level of state and you would be oblivious.

I can only say you are wrong but have a migrane and am not in the mood tonight.

Of course that is a somewhat dejected point. Although I admire your stance.

S.9: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." As long as Canada has a government, Canada cannot be without a sovereign. From the Act of Settlement: "the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms... shall be, remain, and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants."

You have a point there but I won't say it is final.

Unless excluded by a special constitutional amendment,

.. or... or a giant meteor plumets from the sky, or the 2nd coming - jesus surely must have higher standing?

the Crown ''always'' belongs to the closest living Protestant heir of Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (without the pre-approval of an incomplete paraliament or a coronation, as demonstrated by the accession and abdication of Edward VIII, the example you keep ignoring). The line of succssion is set. Ergo, what you suggest is illegal.

No not always.

I asked you to link to it.

I ask you find it yourself.

No, I don't understand why you insist on ignoring the hard evidence in front of your face in favour of your own slapped together, illogical fantasies.

[c/e]

Because it seems to be coming from someone who is beneath me in perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW when you actually take into account the pan globa / pan european global family etc.. it gets even more complex.

oh and then the effet of the european union on the british constitution, and any side effect it would have on the Canadian constitution

Dynasts

A ruler in a dynasty is sometimes referred to as a dynast, but this term is also used to describe any member of a reigning family who retains succession rights to a throne. For example, following his abdication, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom ceased to be a dynastic member of the House of Windsor.

A "dynastic marriage" is one that complies with monarchical house law restrictions, so that the descendants are eligible to inherit the throne and/or other royal privileges. For instance, the 2002 marriage of Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange to Máxima Zorreguieta was dynastic, and their eldest child is expected to eventually inherit the Dutch crown. But the marriage of his younger brother Prince Friso to Mabel Wisse Smit in 2003 lacked government support and parliamentary approval. Thus Friso forfeited his place in the order of succession, lost his title as a Prince of the Netherlands, and his children have no dynastic rights.

In historical and monarchist references to formerly reigning families, dynastic describes a family member who would have succession rights if the monarchy's rules were still in force. For example, after the 1914 assassinations of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his morganatic wife Sophie von Hohenberg, their son Max was bypassed for the Austrian throne because he was not a Habsburg dynast. Even since abolition of the Austrian monarchy, Max and his descendants have not been considered the rightful pretenders by Austrian monarchists, nor have they claimed that position.

The term "dynast" is sometimes used to refer to agnatic descendants of a realm's monarchs, and sometimes to those who hold succession rights through cognatic royal descent. The term can therefore describe overlapping but distinct sets of people. For example, David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, a nephew of Queen Elizabeth II through her late sister, Princess Margaret, is in the line of succession to the British crown, and in that sense is a British dynast. Yet he is not a male-line member of the royal family, and is therefore not a dynast of the House of Windsor.

On the other hand, the German aristocrat Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954), although a male-line descendant of George III of the United Kingdom, is a remote descendant with no legal British titles and styles (although he is entitled to re-claim the once-royal dukedom of Cumberland). Yet he was born in the line of succession to the British crown and is bound by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Thus, in 1999 he requested and obtained formal permission from Elizabeth II to marry the Roman Catholic Princess Caroline of Monaco. But immediately upon marriage he forfeited his right to the British throne because the English Act of Settlement 1701 dictates that dynasts married to a Roman Catholic are considered dead for the purpose of succession. However, the couple's daughter, Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1999), remains a legal dynast of both the United Kingdom and Monaco[citation needed], not to mention her father's claim to dynasticity as pretender to the former royal crown of Hanover.

This gets even more complex when you need to really ask the question?

Who is making these rules anyway?

None the less that probably ins't a good enough point for you but the bottom line is....

I'm going to bed.

But first it just devolves to

We are....

but that needn't be this or that res publica or monarchy it is all just a crafty way of saving time in assembling how things are about.

Personally I think culture is beneficial, and heritage can show us many things to improve tomorrow.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Writing to an illiterate person serves little purpose. The only other excuse is marked mental deformaty.

Like so many others here, when your bullshit is exposed for what it is by your own failure to support it with factual evidence, or even a rational theory, you run to cower behind petulant ad hominems. No proof parliament can operate without one of its three constitutionally required parts. No proof that government can carry on without the very figure in whom government is constitutionally vested. No proof the Act of Settlement is no longer a part of the constitution governing the succession to Canada's throne. No proof that a vote in parliament has, since at least 1701, ever taken place before a monarchical succession occurred. No proof that Edward VIII was not king. Etcetera, etcetera. Instead, all you can offer is a little outburst before more rambling incoherencies; it's the final nail in your bizarre notion's coffin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[P]arliament has the power to remove or appoint a new monarch - this is usually only done at the time of death of the previous monarch.

Just another little fun fact to ram WA's claim into the ground: Canada's parliament wasn't even in session when Elizabeth II's proclamation of accession was read out by Thibaudeau Rinfret, Administrator of Canada, on 6 February 1952, the very day George VI died (and a full day before the proclamation was issued in the UK). Parliament had been in recess since 29 December 1951 and didn't reconvene until

28 February 1952. Similarly, parliament wasn't in session when Edward VIII acceded on 20 January 1936 (dissolved between 14 August 1935 and 6 February 1936), or when Edward abdicated and George VI became king on 11 December 1936 (in recess between 23 June 1936 and 14 January 1937).

[clarify]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. That pre-Constitution Act, 1982 constitutional documents no longer apply. I'm surmising this one, because he seems to think pretty much anything prior to 1982 no longer has the weight of constitutional dictate to it. This is a very republican view of a constitution. Certainly in places like France and the United States, when a new constitution is promulgated, it inherently replaces the old constitution (though, oddly enough, not always the laws, as many aspects of the Napoleonic Code still apply in France and the Common Law still applies in many US states). But that does not apply in our constitutional system, and has not applied since at least the promulgation of the Magna Carta, and I'd argue even earlier. While some constitutional arrangements and powers, to be sure, may over time fall into disuse and eventually be viewed as extinct, in our system no constitutional alteration automatically overrides an older one unless it is explicitly stated to do so. Hence the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is still an inherent part of our constitution, though it predates even the BNA Act, 1867, and this was demonstrated by the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw ruling in 1997, that relied upon the Proclamation's requirements for dealing with the Indian peoples to demonstrate that Aboriginal Title had never been extinguished by the colonial government of British Columbia (as was the Province's assertion). By William's logic, the Supreme Court erred, but clearly the Court, being fully cognizant that our constitution is much more expansive than simply the Constitution Act, 1982 or even the British North America Act, 1867.

The Canadian Charter of no Rights and fickle-ly applicable Freedoms provides, in relevant part:

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

This means to me that ToadBrother is right and the Charter overlays rather than replaces the BNA Act, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Westminister Act and other constitutional components pre-dating the Charter.

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadian Charter of no Rights and fickle-ly applicable Freedoms provides, in relevant part:

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

This means to me that ToadBrother is right and the Charter overlays rather than replaces the BNA Act, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Westminister Act and other constitutional components pre-dating the Charter.

Good catch there. Along with my examples (in particular the Supreme Court's use of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Mulroney's use of Section 24 of the BNA Act to stack the Senate in 1990), it's obvious the only person out there who thinks that the Constitution Act, 1982 extinguishes previous constitutional documents, decrees or traditions is, well, William himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good catch there. Along with my examples (in particular the Supreme Court's use of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Mulroney's use of Section 24 of the BNA Act to stack the Senate in 1990), it's obvious the only person out there who thinks that the Constitution Act, 1982 extinguishes previous constitutional documents, decrees or traditions is, well, William himself.

They arn't british subjects, the laws in particular pertain to british subjects. There are no new subjects (or very few) after my generation. Those born befor 1982.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another little fun fact to ram WA's claim into the ground: Canada's parliament wasn't even in session when Elizabeth II's proclamation of accession was read out by Thibaudeau Rinfret, Administrator of Canada, on 6 February 1952, the very day George VI died (and a full day before the proclamation was issued in the UK). Parliament had been in recess since 29 December 1951 and didn't reconvene until

28 February 1952. Similarly, parliament wasn't in session when Edward VIII acceded on 20 January 1936 (dissolved between 14 August 1935 and 6 February 1936), or when Edward abdicated and George VI became king on 11 December 1936 (in recess between 23 June 1936 and 14 January 1937).

[clarify]

That is problematic to make points, what is your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They arn't british subjects, the laws in particular pertain to british subjects. There are no new subjects (or very few) after my generation. Those born befor 1982.

And this is your final argument? Even for you, William, that's pathetic. The fact is that the BNA Act and other constitutional elements pre-1982 are still active. Mulroney could stack the Senate and the Aboriginal peoples did not have their rights extinguished because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 required the Crown to deal properly and fairly with them.

If your argument makes any sense at all, which it really doesn't, you're actually seriously trying to contend that elements of our constitution only apply to people older than 28 years old.

It's laughable, William. Laughable and pathetic. You really do think we're idiots to imagine that we would buy that stupid an argument. YOu lost, William, you invented things or repeated the inventions of some other deluded people, and rather than concede, or at least disappear, you'll just keep making more pathetic and incoherent arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is problematic to make points, what is your question?

I should note though that this statement from you actually contradicts many of your earlier statements, and does not disprove any requirements that exist simply by stating a method that hath occured, when there are other examples of such, so as to not proove a singular case. There are many many points that could be addressed from your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should note though that this statement from you actually contradicts many of your earlier statements, and does not disprove any requirements that exist simply by stating a method that hath occured, when there are other examples of such, so as to not proove a singular case. There are many many points that could be addressed from your statements.

You've lost, William. Every point you made that was in the least cogent was dealt with. Parliament does not need to affirm a Monarch, elements of our constitution pre-1982 are still in effect, and in fact have both been referenced by the courts and used by the Government.

You got caught making crap up, or at least, repeating crap you'd read elsewhere. I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by all of this. It's not like you've exhibited any particular knowledge on the topic, just very badly formed theories that seem to have very little to do with our governing system. Since there's probably only three or four of us even reading this thread, you can't possibly hope to convince any of us.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...