The Federal Republic of Canada

[ToadBrother]

The greatest thing about your post is the "tehcnically." She technically is the highest person in Canada but the PM has all the power. She's merely a weak check on that power.

I would hardly call it a weak check, but rather a seldom-used one. This is a principle that has guided our monarchy since the Victorian Era, that the seldom-used touch keeps the Monarch safe from accusations of political tampering, but it always remains a reminder for any Government that their powers are not universal.

We (and the Brits and the Aussies) should ponder that in this age of minorities and coalitions that the Queen and her vice-regal representatives are much more likely to have to use their substantial reserve powers. That they are often constrained by the obligation to act on the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers doesn't preclude the possibility of the fall of a government or dissolution of a Coalition, requiring those reserve powers be invoked without the advice of the Government.

[g_bambino]

I advocate the formation of the Republic of Canada, so that we can enjoy the same democratic privileges as modern nations like USA, Mexico, and Iran, where the citizens actually have the right to elect the people who hold the highest offices in the country, the President and the Senators, and the right to actually bear arms to protect their families instead of being sitting ducks for the hordes of well armed criminals who roam the streets and don't bother with such details as FAQs and registrations when they buy their smuggled guns.

I almost thought this was an ironically humerous post in favour of constitutional monarchy, until I read this:

Constitutional Monarchy is clearly cheating Canadian citizens out of the true democracy of a republic and only illustrates how pathetic our leaders are and have been since the formation of the country. You won't find the Senators, like the highly qualified Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, complaining about it. Would either of them have had a chance of actually being elected as Senators in the US? Here's Mike Duffy's campaign slogan; "vote for me, I'm TV journalist. Who else is better qualified to rule on the passage of laws effecting every Canadian? Wink for mom."

I suppose this poster has never heard of Al Franken, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and... Jesse "The Body" Ventura!

Regardless, how Senators are selected has nothing to do with constitutional monarchy. Australia is one just like we are and still has an elected senate.

[ToadBrother]

Regardless, how Senators are selected has nothing to do with constitutional monarchy. Australia is one just like we are and still has an elected senate.

And New Zealand has no upper house at all.

[g_bambino]

And New Zealand has no upper house at all.

True. But it also has no states or provinces.

[Jack Weber]

I advocate the formation of the Republic of Canada, so that we can enjoy the same democratic privileges as modern nations like USA, Mexico, and Iran, where the citizens actually have the right to elect the people who hold the highest offices in the country, the President and the Senators, and the right to actually bear arms to protect their families instead of being sitting ducks for the hordes of well armed criminals who roam the streets and don't bother with such details as FAQs and registrations when they buy their smuggled guns. Those are pretty basic rights, in my opinion. Why do Canadians settle for what we have now, a Constitutional Monarchy?

Here's an interesting quote about the subject of Constitutional Monarchies;

"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

Constitutional Monarchy is clearly cheating Canadian citizens out of the true democracy of a republic and only illustrates how pathetic our leaders are and have been since the formation of the country. I can only assume that they perpetuate this travesty of democracy because it serves their own purposes. You won't find the Senators, like the highly qualified Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, complaining about it. Would either of them have had a chance of actually being elected as Senators in the US? Here's Mike Duffy's campaign slogan; "vote for me, I'm TV journalist. Who else is better qualified to rule on the passage of laws effecting every Canadian? Wink for mom." Would Harper have been elected President? Maybe if he was running against a Ken doll, otherwise not too likely. Speaking of slogans, here's one for the nation of Canada; "Canada, we settled for second best and we're damn proud of it".

Democratic priviledges of Iran....

Ahem...

Highly qualified senators like Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin...(you forgot the functionally illiterate Jacques Demers)

Ahem...

Clearly you want to be like our conservative libertarian friends to the South...

My tip???

Move there and save this country from the horrendous constitutional wranglings your "solution" to our democratic deficit will bring us...

[William Ashley]

I advocate the formation of the Republic of Canada, so that we can enjoy the same democratic privileges

Such as?

as modern nations like USA, Mexico, and Iran, where the citizens actually have the right to elect the people

In the US the states Elect the president not the people via a college of electors (around 140 or so people). I have no idea how elections occur in Mexico, I do remember reading that you can vote if you perform your military service. In Iran once again I only know that all people running need to be approved by an electoral council.

In Canada you need to have a member of a provincial accountancy organization to endorse you to be able to run - this usually involves paying a few thousands dollars to them (the government gives up to 250$ of it), and you also need to pay a $1000 fee that you may get back. Note accountants are needed even if you don't have a campaign with expenses or donations. Then that 350 or so people select the person - they can also "select the monarch" - that is parliament has the power to remove or appoint a new monarch - this is usually only done at the time of death of the previous monarch. Although the government and current monarch may have residual capacities to prevent such a thing from happening - such as shutting down parliament. This simply isn't in the realm of likelyhood (in Canada -its happened in other commonwealth countries - although most choose not to have a new monarch) .

who hold the highest offices in the country, the President and the Senators, and the right to actually bear arms to protect their families instead of being sitting ducks for the hordes of well armed criminals who roam the streets

I'm wondering if this is a lame post to show how Canada really isn't that different from Iran and the US... .. The right to bear arms exists in Canada as residual from British tradition.. There are however some fundamental justice issues for public safety in gun control. I have swords, many knives - fact is we have the capacity to have "many weapons" arms does not solely equate hand grenades and machine guns. I support a militia system that better regulates and provides access to firearms. I don't think Canadians should be deprived of responsible access - and for the most part they arn't - there are some barriers and potential issues with the current system but most of those errors are human error related, and financial in nature. You get that with more than firearms issues. Only certain classess of weapons are restricted or prohibited. There are many weapons that are available that are not. You may say, but all the really good ones are... you can say that. Fact is those were the ones that were "most dangerous for various reasons" Many weapons can still be effective that don't meet the definitions in the proscibed classes. The need is there - perhaps the ablity to defend against criminals is another way of saying the police are inneffective in protecting the public - being responders rather than protectors. The role is like that. The rich and business can hire bodygaurds and security gaurds - it is a class barrier - disempowerment to the lower classes. The Canadian government is plauged with that premis, attack the vulgar mob, it is millenial in age. If you follow history you can see the effect of arming the public - fact is though - community police arose out of the communes. we need not be vigilantes but simply volunteer as suplimentary forces to your local police forces, you may even find it easier to possess a firearm that way. It is not the only means - guns are not free usually. Bullets are not free. The gun license is just another step in that. And the safety training can be there to insure you know how to use it without hurting yourself or someone else and that you don't get arrested because someone considers you a risk because of you walking around with a gun tucked into your jacket rather than in a box.

There can be overkill in this, but some people respond differently than others when guns are involved.

and don't bother with such details as FAQs and registrations when they buy their smuggled guns. Those are pretty basic rights, in my opinion. Why do Canadians settle for what we have now, a Constitutional Monarchy?

And the alternative is. Note you can purport overthrow (although with inherent non criminal risks) but you can't purport violent overthrow. The first is called politics, the second is called terrorism (these days).

Here's an interesting quote about the subject of Constitutional Monarchies;

"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

Constitutional Monarchy is clearly cheating Canadian citizens out of the true democracy

This is not to say a "true democracy" would exist without the monarchy. No government on the planet right now is a true democracy. Where all people have equal voting power on all issues of the polis. Some people don't even have their choice of representation on issues. The courts have even alienated equal self representation or right of prosecution and redress to professional classes who have an oath that allows for corruption of justice to flurish.

of a republic and only illustrates how pathetic our leaders are and have been since the formation of the country. I can only assume that they perpetuate this travesty of democracy because it serves their own purposes. You won't find the Senators, like the highly qualified Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, complaining about it. Would either of them have had a chance of actually being elected as Senators in the US? Here's Mike Duffy's campaign slogan; "vote for me, I'm TV journalist. Who else is better qualified to rule on the passage of laws effecting every Canadian? Wink for mom." Would Harper have been elected President? Maybe if he was running against a Ken doll, otherwise not too likely. Speaking of slogans, here's one for the nation of Canada; "Canada, we settled for second best and we're damn proud of it".

What if eh. The Canadian system isn't based on those systems so why do it. Have those countries managed to be perfection? All of the countries mentioned have their own issues to deal with. There is no universal beyond the individual day to day. It is the law that matters as much as the government that enforces it. The way to change is clear.

Personally I think things are better with the monarchy than with only the corrupt and misguided politicians. (It sets limits on how many rights they can take away from us, or their rivals - not that judges couldn't anyway - but atleast with judges the corruption is contrasted by the way things were suppose to be - we don't need to look further than revolutionary france to see how dangerous unconsolidated power is to the peoples rights - and the threat it poses to political formations of power within a state - threatening the people or the blocs threatens the power of the state itself - as we see in the revolution) The monarchy atleast is there to remind Canadians what rule is, and its history, and the road to capacity in self government.

Its not the system, its the people who administer it.

on the other end

status quo ante - partisan need - and continuance of state

-------

BTW the issue of the constitutional ammending formula is something I havn't really figured out if the current monarch were ever to become deceased. As far as I can tell right now - the premeir of quebec will have to approve of the new monarch (and all other premiers) - I'm not sure if a bloc premier would or not..?.

The present Constitution of Canada contains not one but five amending formulae.

First, section 38 of the Constitution of Canada sets out the general amending formula for changes to the Constitution. This formula requires the approval of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of at least two­thirds of the provinces with at least 50% of the population of all provinces. The two­thirds 50% formula [colloquially referred to as the 7­50 formula] at present requires the approval of 7 provinces, representing at least 50% of the population of all the provinces. Among the features of the Constitution that may be changed in accordance with the 7-50 formula is perhaps the most important element in it, namely, the distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. This is the very substance of the federation.

Second, the Constitution of Canada then sets out other amending formulae, all of which are exceptions to the 7­50 formula. Section 41, which applies to a limited number of matters, requires the unanimous consent of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of each province. The matters requiring unanimous consent are the following:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

( the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

© subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e) an amendment to this Part.

Third, another exception to the 7­50 formula is found in section 43 and concerns any provision that "applies to one or more but not all, provinces", including alterations to boundaries between provinces and language within a province. Amendments in respect of these matters require the consent of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

Fourth, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 authorizes amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons, other than those matters referred to in sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The amendments authorized by section 44 are within the exclusive power of the Parliament of Canada.

Fifth, and the last exception to the 7­50 general amending formula, is to be found in section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This provision empowers the legislature of each province exclusively to make laws amending the constitution of that province. This amending formula, like the formula set out in section 44, discussed above, must be read subject to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982--the unanimous consent formula.

According to this every MPP and MLA would have to confirm Charles III. (for monarchists I would guess the reigning name may have signifigance) (in addition to every MP and senator)

Edited August 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonlight Graham]

I suppose this poster has never heard of Al Franken, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and... Jesse "The Body" Ventura!

The difference is that the above were elected to office, Duffy and Wallin not.

But at least Duffy & Wallin were in the news/journalism business, so they probably 100% uninformed on issues. They are both dumb appointments, but i could think of far worse...like Wayne Gretzky or Polkaroo.

[Moonlight Graham]

re: a republic of Canada:

In principle i support the idea of a republic, and in principle i support the idea of banishing the monarchy from our government. However, unfortunately in reality these things would likely cause more headaches than not if implemented. A republic could easily cause parliamentary gridlock if the PM and president were from different parties and the president was given any real power, among other problems (such as re-opening the Constitution, which has caused havoc in this country when this has historically been done)

Having an elected Senate would also cause many problems, re-opening the Constitution and parliamentary gridlock among them. It would be nothing short of a mess, although at first glance it seems like a desirable idea. There's a reason why we haven't instituted an elected Senate yet.

There's also tons of academic literature examining on the topic of Senate reform if anyone is curious about the possible risks/options. Here's any excellent recent overview by Jack Stilborn commissioned by the federal gov: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0742-e.htm

Edited August 31, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[ToadBrother]

There's also tons of academic literature examining on the topic of Senate reform if anyone is curious about the possible risks/options. Here's any excellent recent overview by Jack Stilborn commissioned by the federal gov: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0742-e.htm

Probably the biggest risk was made clear by the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis. Still, it has only happened once in Australia.

As with any reforms, one should be cautious of the down sides. There is no such thing as a perfect reform. While democracy should be a key element, one should not discount stability. One of the reasons Canada remains an attractive place to do business, particularly in this climate is that despite having a minority government, our institutions are very stable.

[ToadBrother]

According to this every MPP and MLA would have to confirm Charles III. (for monarchists I would guess the reigning name may have signifigance) (in addition to every MP and senator)

Huh? We are bound by the Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement. It is the base assumption of the former constitutional document that all the Commonwealth Realms will obey the constitutional requirements of the latter document.

I know you kind of fancy yourself some sort of expert, William, but you keep saying the most daft and ludicrous things.

The "change" referred to here would be something that alters the nature of the Queen's position in Canada; say altering or removing a Royal Prerogative, or something more extreme like breaking with the Monarchy entirely. The Statute of Westminster was designed explicitly so that all the Parliaments of all the countries that share the Monarchy would be in accord as to who assumed the Throne.

[g_bambino]

The difference is that the above were elected to office, Duffy and Wallin not.

And in the part of my post that you left out I said that how senators are selected is irrelevant to the subject of constitutional monarchy.

[wyly]

why can't we keep what we have now just turf the royals and elect our GG who would retain the same responsibilities he/she now has...senate, turn it into a 24 hr clinic or a daycare, something useful...

[William Ashley]

btw what seems to legally happen if quebec or any other legislature doesn't affirm charles is...

no monarch will be recognized - the current GG will be in sitting until their death or resignation - at that time no new laws will come into power, and no new government can be formed. When the existing members of government die, there would be no more government. Government could be altered until PM died.

The parliament would be "endless" legally - although elections canada may have some powers for by elections - without election writs being issued by the GG.

Edited August 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

btw what seems to legally happen if quebec or any other legislature doesn't affirm charles is...

no monarch will be recognized - the current GG will be in sitting until their death or resignation - at that time no new laws will come into power, and no new government can be formed. When the existing members of government die, there would be no more government. Government could be altered until PM died.

Nonsense. I've said so before.

When the monarch dies, his or her heir according to the Act of Settlement immediately becomes monarch. No "affirmation" is necessary.

[g_bambino]

why can't we keep what we have now just turf the royals and elect our GG who would retain the same responsibilities he/she now has...senate, turn it into a 24 hr clinic or a daycare, something useful...

Because that would be stupid.

[wyly]

Because that would be stupid.

I understand your confusion, the concept is obviously too difficult for you to grasp... Edited August 31, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

btw what seems to legally happen if quebec or any other legislature doesn't affirm charles is...

The Statute of Westminster binds the legislatures of any of Canadian provinces (don't know about Australia, it may leave the nature of the Crown in the hands of the national parliament). Basically, unless we're going to move to amend our constitution, and basically repudiate the Statute of Westminster, the only thing Parliament or the provincial legislative assemblies can do is go along with the rest of the Commonwealth Realms in acclaiming the next monarch. Let's remember here, as I said to another post of yours, that the new monarch becomes that monarch immediately upon the death of the previous. While Parliament, or by extension all parliaments in the Commonwealth Realms (since the Statute of Westminster made all Commonwealth Parliaments coeval), have the power to reject a monarch, for all intents and purposes, the succession is already set.

And a single province could not simply refuse to recognize the new monarch. It would require all of them and the Federal Parliament to do that.

no monarch will be recognized - the current GG will be in sitting until their death or resignation - at that time no new laws will come into power, and no new government can be formed. When the existing members of government die, there would be no more government. Government could be altered until PM died.

The parliament would be "endless" legally - although elections canada may have some powers for by elections - without election writs being issued by the GG.

You keep coming up with these absurd scenarios. As I said, and said before, Prince Charles (unless he refuses the throne) will at the very moment Elizabeth II is declared dead, become our King.

The Act of Settlement is a constitutional document which sets up who will be eligible for the throne, and it along with the laws of primogeniture pretty much bind Parliament's hands on who gets to be the next king or queen. The last time Parliament ever in fact exercised the power to remove a monarch was James II, and in fact they didn't technically remove him until he had fled Britain, and was thus deemed to have extinguished his claims and the claims of his heirs.

When it became clear that Queen Anne would not bear an heir to the throne, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement, which is still to this day a inextricable part of the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms, which made clear how the succession was to be handled. The Statute of Westminster, which is also a part of the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms, also serves as a treaty between those Realms to bind them all to the Act of Settlement. Furthermore, the Constitution Act, 1982 pretty much requires the Federal Parliament and all the provinces to agree on the change or abolition. Short of that, when Queen Elizabeth II dies, in all the Realms it will be declared "The Queen is dead! Long live the King!". If Canada chooses at that moment to sever its ties to the current Monarchy, Parliament and the provinces will have to all agree. One man out, and Charles remains King Charles III.

[g_bambino]

I understand your confusion, the concept is obviously too difficult for you to grasp...

And I understand your need to confuse disapproval with confusion; it helps you maintain the belief that your ideas are wise and perfect.

[ToadBrother]

Nonsense. I've said so before.

When the monarch dies, his or her heir according to the Act of Settlement immediately becomes monarch. No "affirmation" is necessary.

William's position, so far as I can tell, is based on the notion that Parliament has to pass some law or acclaim the next monarch. The Act of Settlement, in fact, creates a status quo, and if Parliament wants to put someone else on the throne, then it has to expressly do so, otherwise the current heir presumptive becomes the monarch immediately upon his or her death. Parliament has never since the Act of Settlement invoked its power to remove a monarch.

[g_bambino]

You keep coming up with these absurd scenarios. As I said, and said before, Prince Charles (unless he refuses the throne) will at the very moment Elizabeth II is declared dead, become our King.

Charles can't even opt out without the approval of all the realms, which includes all of Canada's provinces, akin to the situation in 1936 (though it was easier then to facilitate the abdication of Edward VIII than it would be for Charles today).

[g_bambino]

William's position, so far as I can tell, is based on the notion that Parliament has to pass some law or acclaim the next monarch. The Act of Settlement, in fact, creates a status quo, and if Parliament wants to put someone else on the throne, then it has to expressly do so, otherwise the current heir presumptive becomes the monarch immediately upon his or her death. Parliament has never since the Act of Settlement invoked its power to remove a monarch.

He may be drawing on the silly theory put forward by Edward McWhinney a few years ago; namely, that the governor general now only represents the Crown but not the sovereign and Canada can become a republic merely by refusing to proclaim Charles as king, leaving a vacant throne that would simply disappear in time through attrition. It's a bizarre interpretation of the "living tree" concept of our constitution that totally ignores Section 41 of the Constitution Act.

[ToadBrother]

He may be drawing on the silly theory put forward by Edward McWhinney a few years ago; namely, that the governor general now only represents the Crown but not the sovereign and Canada can become a republic merely by refusing to proclaim Charles as king, leaving a vacant throne that would simply disappear in time through attrition. It's a bizarre interpretation of the "living tree" concept of our constitution that totally ignores Section 41 of the Constitution Act.

Indeed. It's a ludicrous theory. Even more ludicrous that any single legislative assembly in Canada could upset the apple cart.

[William Ashley]

The Statute of Westminster binds the legislatures of any of Canadian provinces (don't know about Australia, it may leave the nature of the Crown in the hands of the national parliament).

Canada has its own constitution. Its constitution is the foundation. The monarch of Canada is the executive head of state, not the law. They confirm law and bring it into force, they cannot undo law exept as they are permited through the powers they maybe have. since the overthrow of the british monarchy the monarchs powers were grossly limited.

Basically, unless we're going to move to amend our constitution,

A new monarch is a change to the constitution.

and basically repudiate the Statute of Westminster, the only thing Parliament or the provincial legislative assemblies can do is go along with the rest of the Commonwealth Realms in acclaiming the next monarch.

So they are all going to make the same choice - you know they have the option.

Let's remember here, as I said to another post of yours, that the new monarch becomes that monarch immediately upon the death of the previous.

This is simply not true. There are stages to assumption, including legal requirement - legally speaking. Since the monarch is suppose to represent rule of law, failure to respect the law in assumption is just criminal upsurption.

While Parliament, or by extension all parliaments in the Commonwealth Realms (since the Statute of Westminster made all Commonwealth Parliaments coeval)

Laws have changed since the statute of westminster.

have the power to reject a monarch, for all intents and purposes, the succession is already set.

The appointed heir may be set but the qualifiations including those in the Canadian constitution are pertinent and required at law.

And a single province could not simply refuse to recognize the new monarch. It would require all of them and the Federal Parliament to do that.

You are quite wrong due to the specific ammending formula set out for changes to office of the queen.

You keep coming up with these absurd scenarios. As I said, and said before, Prince Charles (unless he refuses the throne) will at the very moment Elizabeth II is declared dead, become our King.

How presumptious of you. You clearly arn't a legalist.

The Act of Settlement is a constitutional document which sets up who will be eligible for the throne,

This is not the only document that does so. There are multiple documents, INCLUDING the constitution acts of Canada.

and it along with the laws of primogeniture pretty much bind Parliament's hands on who gets to be the next king or queen. The last time Parliament ever in fact exercised the power to remove a monarch was James II, and in fact they didn't technically remove him until he had fled Britain, and was thus deemed to have extinguished his claims and the claims of his heirs.

And sine when has a monarch been in Canada? hmm? Using this same precedent... that is not the point though.

When it became clear that Queen Anne would not bear an heir to the throne, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement, which is still to this day a inextricable part of the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms, which made clear how the succession was to be handled. The Statute of Westminster, which is also a part of the constitutions of the Commonwealth Realms, also serves as a treaty between those Realms to bind them all to the Act of Settlement.

This is NOT the only doccument the constitution of Canada has a higher legal standing than a treaty.

Furthermore, the Constitution Act, 1982 pretty much requires the Federal Parliament and all the provinces to agree on the change or abolition. Short of that, when Queen Elizabeth II dies, in all the Realms it will be declared "The Queen is dead! Long live the King!". If Canada chooses at that moment to sever its ties to the current Monarchy, Parliament and the provinces will have to all agree. One man out, and Charles remains King Charles III.

you keep using this line but fail to actually demonstrate the legal context here. Your statement is rhetorical.

Personally I'm far more of a monarchist than a republican, but I am far more of a legalist and constitutionalist than monarchist.

Fudging law and things like the succession does no one any good.

Edited August 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

A new monarch is a change to the constitution.

The change in monarch happens according to the constitution. So no, it's not a change to the constitution.

[ToadBrother]

Canada has its own constitution. Its constiuttion is the foundation. The monarch of Canada is the executive head of state, not the law. They confirm law and bring it into force, they cannot undo law exept as they are permited through the powers they maybe have. since the overthrow of the british monarchy the monarchs powers were grossly limited.

Our constitution is made up not just of the Constitution Act, 1982, but of a whole series of acts, including the Statute of Westminster, and a number of acts prior to the BNA Act, including the Act of Settlement. To modify any of these constitutional conventions or acts requires invoking the amending formulas put forth in the Constitution Act, 1982. 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.

Come on William. This is basic constitutional law here. The scenarios you invoke simply are not constitutional.

A new monarch is a change to the constitution.

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

So they are all going to make the same choice - you know they have the option.

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

This is simply not true. There are stages to assumption, including legal requirement - legally speaking. Since the monarch is suppose to represent rule of law, failure to respect the law in assumption is just criminal upsurption.

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.

You're out of your depth, William.

Laws have changed since the statuted of westminster.

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).

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).

The appointed heir may be set but the qualifiations including those in the Canadian constitution are pertinent and required at law.

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.

You are quite wrong due to the specific ammending formula set out for changes to office of the queen.

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

How presumptious of you. You clearly arn't a legalist.

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.

This is not the only document that does so. There are multiple documents, INCLUDING the constitution acts of Canada.

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.

And sine when has a monarch been in Canada? hmm? Using this same precedent... that is not the point though.

Now you're just being moronic.

This is NOT the only doccument the constitution of Canada has a higher legal standing than a treaty.

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

you keep using this line but fail to actually demonstrate the legal context here. Your statement is rhetorical.

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

Personally I'm far more of a monarchist than a republican, but I am far more of a legalist and constitutionalist than monarchist.

Fudging law and things like the succession does no one any good.

There's no fudging. 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. They are not the same thing.

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

Edited August 31, 2010 by ToadBrother