The Federal Republic of Canada

[William Ashley]

You've lost, William.

Lost my opinion, I hardly think you are capable of that.

Every point you made that was in the least cogent was dealt with.

In your head maybe, but the fact you lack substance in your reasoning doesn't make your statements any more correct.

Parliament does not need to affirm a Monarch

They do.

, elements of our constitution pre-1982 are still in effect

For some people.

, and in fact have both been referenced by the courts and used by the Government.

Court rulings are case specific and dated.

You got caught making crap up

What statments are inaccurate, that you have evidence indicating otherwise? All I am seeing is non complete conjecture. Just because someone kills someone and lives 20 years befor dying naturally doesn't make everyone who kills someone bound to live 20 years befor dying naturally. What are your grounds?

, or at least, repeating crap you'd read elsewhere. I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by all of this.

Educating the masses and clarifying people with less than good morals.

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.

That is your opinion.

Since there's probably only three or four of us even reading this thread, you can't possibly hope to convince any of us.

I'm not here to convince I am forewarning.

Fact does not make law.

-----

we are loosing our rights.

---

If you can learn anything about law today understand that precedent is case specific and each case is unique. A judge can find common basis for application given the circumstances but laws change, and situations may not be identical. Laws such as the patriation of the constitution did indeed change case ruling capacity of some previous cases. (any case brought to the supreme court under a charter challenge for instance )

just because a case hasn't seen a charter challenge doesn't mean a future case cannot.

Edited September 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Court rulings are case specific and dated.

I'm not even going to deal with the rest of your idiotic word salad, but this one is laughable, because Supreme Court rulings are anything but. And now you're going to make up bullcrap about our Common Law system, too? YOu truly are one ignorant man.

I just don't get it. It's like you've literally lost grip and are just responding without even bothering to read what you write. I mean, a frickin' kid in grade 10 knows that Supreme Court rulings are binding and precedent setting permanently, until the statutory or constitutional basis of the rulings are altered. In general, in Common Law, any ruling of this kind is going to be precedent setting.

Come on William. Give it up. You're just looking foolish now.

Edited September 9, 2010 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

I'm not even going to deal with the rest of your idiotic word salad, but this one is laughable, because Supreme Court rulings are anything but. And now you're going to make up bullcrap about our Common Law system, too? YOu truly are one ignorant man.

What bullcrap?

You and bambino can spout baseless rhetoric all you want and it doesn't support the truth.

Edited September 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

That would be fine...if they were spouting baseless rhetoric. You're wrong and it's not hard to find out that you're wrong. You simply don't want to admit it.

[ToadBrother]

If you can learn anything about law today understand that precedent is case specific and each case is unique. A judge can find common basis for application given the circumstances but laws change, and situations may not be identical. Laws such as the patriation of the constitution did indeed change case ruling capacity of some previous cases. (any case brought to the supreme court under a charter challenge for instance )

THe Constitution Act, 1982, like every alteration in the history of constitution alters precisely those things that it alters. It cannot alter previous cases. Those laws or clauses that it counters will be overturned, of course, just like how most of the elements of the Magna Carta were slowly altered or extinguished, until only Habeas Corpus really remained. That didn't make the Magna Carta any less a part of our constitution, it means that only a small number of elements remain binding.

[ToadBrother]

What bullcrap?

You and bambino can spout baseless rhetoric all you want and it doesn't support the truth.

We speak facts. The only person spouting rhetoric is you. You don't even both trying to find references in most cases, insisting that we accept your obviously flawed arguments, because somehow they're inherently logical. You have yet to explain how Edward VIII was king, or how Mulroney could invoke Section 24 of the BNA Act to add Senators. You can't explain these things because they utterly demolish your claims. You simply ignore them or make orthogonal arguments that amount to little more than red herrings and word salad.

[g_bambino]

Here is the truth: Laws written yesterday don't apply today because the Queen died in the Bermuda Triangle forty two years ago and the Premier of Quebec wasn't a British subject but did see a cookie and that cookie has been granting Royal Assent to unanimous proclamations and will do so until a meteor strikes Earth or we witness the second coming of Jesus. You're all obviously too stupid to have known that.

[jbg]

You've lost, William. Every point you made that was in the least cogent was dealt with.

He may have a lot of positive attributes. Being cogent isn't one of them.

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.

No kidding.

[William Ashley]

We speak facts. The only person spouting rhetoric is you. You don't even both trying to find references in most cases, insisting that we accept your obviously flawed arguments, because somehow they're inherently logical. You have yet to explain how Edward VIII was king, or how Mulroney could invoke Section 24 of the BNA Act to add Senators. You can't explain these things because they utterly demolish your claims. You simply ignore them or make orthogonal arguments that amount to little more than red herrings and word salad.

TIMEFRAME.

As I already explained - different laws are in effect but are subject to change, as well as a case by case context.

Edward didn't recieve the crown and he was requeseted to resign. Basically they didn't agree to confirm him.

His father cursed him befor he died. His father was king. That resulted in the abdication.

I'll be back on the senators thing.

Edited September 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

TIMEFRAME.

As I already explained - different laws are in effect but are subject to change, as well as a case by case context.

Edward didn't recieve the crown and he was requeseted to resign. Basically they didn't agree to confirm him.

His father cursed him befor he died. His father was king. That resulted in the abdication.

I'll be back on the senators thing.

There are different levels to assumption.

[ToadBrother]

TIMEFRAME.

As I already explained - different laws are in effect but are subject to change, as well as a case by case context.

Edward didn't recieve the crown and he was requeseted to resign. Basically they didn't agree to confirm him.

Are you a complete ignoramus? Instruments of abdication had to be prepared... Abdication, William. People who aren't king don't abdicate. What's more, he was Edward VIII... not the heir presumptive, not the King-presumptive, he was king.

Why are you persisting in this? We know you're lying, William. You know you're lying. You're looking contemptible and dishonest now.

His father cursed him befor he died. His father was king. That resulted in the abdication.

I'll be back on the senators thing.

I'm sure you will when you come up with more bullcrap. You realize that you're supposed to have evidence for a claim before you make it, and not rush around after the fact.

Give it up. You lost. You're wrong. Now you're just looking deceitful and wrong, a man who made false claims then tries to cover them up with infantile lies.

[ToadBrother]

There are different levels to assumption.

No there are not, William. This is just another fabrication.

[William Ashley]

Are you a complete ignoramus? Instruments of abdication had to be prepared...

He made them, so said ....

Abdication, William. People who aren't king don't abdicate.

People who are king don't abdicate - until then. Act of settlement doesn't provide for abdication.

This in itself =proves another point ---- if the king gives assent to his own law - is it effectual? Parliment set requirements for exercise.

What's more, he was Edward VIII... not the heir presumptive, not the King-presumptive, he was king.

Sovereign, monarch,crown and throne all have different meanings.

Why are you persisting in this? We know you're lying, William. You know you're lying. You're looking contemptible and dishonest now.

I saw that episode of star trek it was the one when picard was captured by the caradians if I recall correctly.

Dude you continue with the rhetoric without opposing my points.

I'm sure you will when you come up with more bullcrap. You realize that you're supposed to have evidence for a claim before you make it, and not rush around after the fact.

Give it up. You lost. You're wrong. Now you're just looking deceitful and wrong, a man who made false claims then tries to cover them up with infantile lies.

Denial is the first stage of grief, hopefully you can work your way out of your convulutions.

[g_bambino]

Dude you continue with the rhetoric without opposing my points.

This, folks, is pretty much WA's admission that he hasn't read a damn thing any of us have posted for him.

Denial is the first stage of grief, hopefully you can work your way out of your convulutions.

And personal attacks are the last refuge of the loser.

[ToadBrother]

People who are king don't abdicate - until then. Act of settlement doesn't provide for abdication.

This in itself =proves another point ---- if the king gives assent to his own law - is it effectual? Parliment set requirements for exercise.

I get it. This is just a game. We make a statement, you reply with some non sequitur.

You got challenged on Edward VIII, you invent a non sequitur. I can't wait to see what you pull up for how the Queen added Senators as per Section 24 of the BNA Act at the request of Her Government in Canada.

[William Ashley]

No there are not, William. This is just another fabrication.

By you.

Here I'll even say some things that perhaps supports.

1. Everyone has the right of rule (you will say it is succession) this is not true because anyone can claim the throne - this gained by gods grace as god is supreme.

2. Once the throne is obtained it makes the person "sovereign" "this is why allegiance is so important" they have to confirm the throne. This comes from the fuedal relationship of allegiance. This is the whole sovreignty issue.

3. A monarch mature sovereign with the right - due to being the head of their house (or meating other issues) a sovreign for instance who is not the head of their house is part of another dynasty, and does not have absolute rule. Eg. all catholic monarchs were sovereigns but not absolute monarchs. In this respect they were akin to a regent.

4. Crown - the crown is executive rule - meaning they have the authority of rule of law.

There are other "assumptions also"

Edited September 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

By you.

Here I'll even say some things that perhaps supports.

1. Everyone has the right of rule (you will say it is succession) this is not true because anyone can claim the throne - this gained by gods grace as god is supreme.

2. Once the throne is obtained it makes the person "sovereign"

3. A monarch mature sovereign with the right - due to being the head of their house (or meating other issues) a sovreign for instance who is not the head of their house is part of another dynasty, and does not have absolute rule. Eg. all catholic monarchs were sovereigns but not absolute monarchs. In this respect they were akin to a regent.

4. Crown - the crown is executive rule - meaning they have the authority of rule of law.

There are other "assumptions also"

And where do you get any of this from? Citations please.

[William Ashley]

And where do you get any of this from? Citations please.

What is it you doubt?

Moreover..The Oath of Allegiance was implemented to secure the supremacy of the reigning monarch of Canada

Its history.

The canadian administrator could at that time (we would hope) confer the crown of Canada, via the privy council. SHe had the throne as "a birthright...?", she assumed soviereignty when she was next in succession - (I'm not sure if she is monarch technically speaking - except that she has her own house thus she in that respect is... ), and she received the crown --- that was I assume vested.. but the problem is...

the king byng affair caused a divide between the monarch and the british government. (in the question of who the govenor general reports to.. if indeed the monarch the conferance is in question because it would not conform to the accension council (and in this respect would sort just be forging new ground or simply unconstitutional overule) but due to changes in the division between Privy council supremacy to the supreme court (basically the supreme court overthrew the crown) but the crown represents rule of law so it wasn't a completely overthrow because he was technically the headman for law at the time so he just appointed someone his superior which was a way of recognizing the sovereignty or rather confirming the sovereignty. (whatever you think of that) in other words he recognized the throne as being inherited.

The question would remain who had authority in 1952... when was the statute of westminister confirmed by Canada? " British Parliament to legislate for the dominions"

"No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation insofar as the same is part of the law of the Dominion"

Parliament was not incredibly vigilant.

"And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

"

It wasn't thus effectual until everyone did it.

HOWEVER:

"When Edward abdicated, the South African Parliament formally voted to "approve" the King's decision."

This would contradict the statute.

Canada enabled the succession to the throne act 1937. This was in violation of the act of settlement...

Where the situation rests at law is problematic

because it was illegal.

For all rights and purposes Edward woudl STILL BE KING...

BUT he would not have the crowns. He remained sovereign until 1971 ... but the whole THRONE issue is circumspect.

For a plentitude of reasons.

In the context of himself he apostasized - or what would be called abdication"

The legality and the factuality are two different things.

It is the only british abdication not by duress.

Richard II abdicated after he ceased to be monarch. (he did not however loose soverignty until his subjects altered their alleigance.)

James was "illegally" removed - that is parliament overruled him. - and in effect he lost his "soveriegnty" due to allegiance (but as you can see not everyone betrayed him as his sons came back to the throne). But first his throne was taken. The crown was given to William. Or rather they installed the monarchy as he was only a regent of sorts he did not have absolute rule - as he recognized the popes absolute rule.\

--------

As background you have to understand the appeals process and thus highest judicial standing has changed in Canada over time. It currently is mostly the Supreme court but some perogatives rest with the governor general (the monarch of course has an absolute reserve but it would draw to the throne in absulution)

At the time the privy council had been striped (or released) their judicial powers as a court of appeal - (note the privy council is not only cabinet but feeds into the chancerellry (although most canadians probably woulnd't even have a clue canada even had a chancellory let alone heralds.

Some of this judicial power has been kept however by the office of the attorney general as a member of the privy concil the solicitor general also had some role. IN essence this is where the attorney generals powers draw from. (This is in part why cabinet is so powerful now - becuase the legal powers of the chancellory aside from the govenror general largerly rest with the attorney general)

It still exists in the UK.

----------

The context here, for Edward is that if parliament is in sessin parliament must approve, if parliament is not in session the government must approve. When parliament is not in session it appears the privy council has more capacities - via executive orders. I must go to bead as the strength of my comments is alluding.

(It appears the Irish free state made the succession thing issued.) because westminster wasn't fullfilled. And continues to be arguably.

In December 1936, when King Edward VIII abdicated from all his thrones, including the throne of Ireland (as created in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act), De Valera decided to use the situation as an opportunity to finally abolish the governor-generalship. Under Amendment No. 27 to the Free State constitution all reference to the King and his official representative was removed from the constitution. However de Valera was later advised by his own Attorney-General and senior advisors that the amendment was not sufficient to abolish the office entirely, which still continued by virtue of Letters Patent, Orders-in-Council and statute law. Though officially insisting that the office had been abolished (de Valera instructed Ua Buachalla to act as though he had left office and to leave his official residence) de Valera introduced a second law, the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1937 to completely eliminate the post from Irish law. Under its own terms the Act applied retroactively, so that the office would be deemed to have been fully abolished in December 1936. In December 1937, under the new Constitution of Ireland, the void was filled as most of the functions that had been performed by the Governor General until 1936 were vested in a new office of President of Ireland.

Ua Buachalla and de Valera, although once close friends, fell out over Ua Buachalla's treatment in the abolition of the governor-generalship, with Ua Buachalla initiating legal proceedings to sue de Valera. However their relationship was eventually healed and, when de Valera later became President of Ireland, he appointed Ua Buachalla to the Council of State in 1959. Ua Buachalla was the last surviving Governor-General, and died aged 97 on 30 October 1963.

WHEREAS the delegates to His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the Reports of the said Conferences:

1937 Constitution

On 29 December 1937, a new constitution, the Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann), came into force. It replaced the Constitution of the Irish Free State and called the state Ireland, or Éire in Irish.[11] The former Irish Free State government had taken steps to formally abolish the Office of Governor-General some months before the new Constitution came into force.[26] Although the Constitution of Ireland established the office of President of Ireland, between 1937 and 1949 Ireland was not technically a republic. This was because the principal key role possessed by a head of state, that of symbolically representing Ireland internationally remained vested under statutory law, in the British king as an organ of the Irish government. The King's title in the Irish Free State was exactly the same as it was elsewhere in the British Empire:

There was also a retroactive abolution of the post granting assent.

There is lots of cross jumbles but it bears on the interpretation of the acts as they have been used.

Stages:

1. King uses his reserves to overthrow himself. - and gives up his throne(s) for any who may partake.

2. British Parliament says no you can't you need to let us do it.

3. Statute of westminister requires all parties to agree. BUT "text of the 1936 act states that the Dominion of Canada consented to the Act applying in Canada under the Statute of Westminster, while Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa also consented."

It does not state the Irisih free state consented.

4. The irish make their own delcaration that removes reference to the crown... but the king remained Edward.

5. The Irish THEN altered their monarch and altered the state with a new constitution.

6. In the 1950's they they removed the monarch, - but until that time the monarch had statutory access tot he crown.

THE PROBLEM: The abdicaiton is in question at point 3. BECAUSE they didn't recognize the kings soverignty at 2.

If it was effectual - it was effectual by the King, otherwise it was not proper procedure, and the succession wouldn't be effectual.

I dunno.

I think in our instance perhaps we need to examine where defacto and de jure rule exist.

That is easily seen in our constitution, as private individuals in society.

But yeah, its there, its here its everywhere.

"The crown was abolished in the Irish Free state befor they consented"

(the throne wasn't) they assumed it (apparently) Although one might question the lawful authority to claim the throne by drafting their own constitution THEN making their own head of state position - as that would not be in line with constitutionality (since they changed their constitution ) BUT by the statute of westminister THEY COUNLDN'T

so as you can see. The abdication wasn't lawful as to the statute of westminister.

As far as I can tell until 1972 Edward was King. Then the primogenture thing would kick in...

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

would be the next king he died

and then

and the legal monarch is..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Richard,_Duke_of_Gloucester

It gets more complex though..

this will get very very complex

another leap here would be

Peter Pininski --- through the jacobite stuarts. - (the issue of regency rests on this one though since James II wasn't a true sovreign - he was a regent for the pope) - as far as I can tell though - he would have the crown. but not sovereignty. I could be wrong on this.. Also only the crowns of England, Ireland and Scotland but only from after the installment (after cromwell)

part of the issue is that parliament backdated the reign of charles the II - the throne was lost ofr part of this period but it appears the monarchy was not. Sovereignty however was lost by his father, and cromwell I suppose/ or parliament must have taken the crown. Unless cI executor gain right by hand - he was following CharlesI orders - ---- so if it was parliament then it means parliament derives its power from roman law

Roman law which stated that a military body (in this case the government) could legally overthrow a tyrant.

(although the line does trace back to ceasar through charlemagne as far as I'm aware)

But if it wasn't parliament - the the executioner executed charles by charles command. So is this an abdication? I'm not sure if a deul on the block would be applicable here.

Then the issue of

Be it declared and enacted by this present Parliament and by the Authoritie of the same That the People of England and of all the Dominions and Territoryes thereunto belonging are and shall be and are hereby constituted, made, established, and confirmed to be a Commonwealth and free State And shall from henceforth be Governed as a Commonwealth and Free State by the supreame Authoritie of this Nation, the Representatives of the People in Parliament and by such as they shall appoint and constitute as Officers and Ministers under them for the good of the People and that without any King or House of Lords.

So in this instance - was the crown extinguished? Who was the executioner? As he had sovereignty over charles.. as granted by the king to depose him.

and parliament would have the throne... and oddly this goes to Elizibeth II.. (somewhat illegally though) The somewhat part is due to the fact of "new foundations" creating new crowns..... so while the original crown isn't vested... it gets complex but it appears that it gets more complex.

yada yada...

ok now I'm really off to bed.

Edited September 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

yada yada...

That just about sums it up.

[g_bambino]

"When Edward abdicated, the South African Parliament formally voted to "approve" the King's decision."

This would contradict the statute.

Unsurprisingly, you've failed to read the entire Statute of Westminster, which states: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof" [emphasis mine]. The South African government "approved" of the King's decision (which was hardly a voluntary one) when it gave its request for and consent to, precisely as per the statute, the enactment of the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, well before the South African parliament passed its own act recognising the abdication. The additional legislation in South Africa was unnecessary and was only created as an extra guarantee of the elimination of the Duke of Windsor and his heirs from the line of succession to the South African throne.

Canada enabled the succession to the throne act 1937. This was in violation of the act of settlement...

Quote the section of the Act of Settlement that disallows Canada from passing laws related to its line of succession. Oh, wait... you don't do requests, of course. Good thing, I guess, because the Act of Settlement says nothing of the kind. See the above history of what took place in South Africa to understand what took place in Canada.

The irish make their own delcaration that removes reference to the crown... but the king remained Edward.

THE PROBLEM: The abdicaiton is in question... BECAUSE they didn't recognize the kings soverignty...

If it was effectual - it was effectual by the King, otherwise it was not proper procedure, and the succession wouldn't be effectual.

Gobbldygook.

The prime minister of the Irish Free State, Éamon de Valera, was a socialist republican and had, even before the abdication, been making or pushing for changes to the law in Ireland to slowly remove the monarchy by stealth. The abdication crisis presented him with a big opportunity - he'd hardly have jumped on it as a way to decrease the presence of the Irish Crown had Ireland not recognised its own sovereignty. The External Relations Act 1936 made George VI King of Ireland.

Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936, (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be king, and the king for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann.

Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936

The abdication is not in question.

The context here, for Edward is that if parliament is in sessin parliament must approve, if parliament is not in session the government must approve. When parliament is not in session it appears the privy council has more capacities - via executive orders.

You really do just make this up as you go along.

He remained sovereign until 1971 ...

As far as I can tell until 1972 Edward was King. Then the primogenture thing would kick in...

In the context of himself he apostasized - or what would be called abdication"

The legality and the factuality are two different things.

It is the only british abdication not by duress.

I dunno.

That's about the smartest thing you've said so far. "Word salad" is putting it nicely.

[ToadBrother]

That's about the smartest thing you've said so far. "Word salad" is putting it nicely.

William's chief problem is that he just can't back down. He's got some sort of weird alpha male syndrome going on. I mean, he can't be so deluded as to think his theories actually mean a damn thing (Edward VIII king until 1971? What kind of crap is that?), so the only other explanation is that he's hoping we'll just wonder away from the thread, leaving his B.S. standing as the final post, and then he'll somehow think he's won.

[William Ashley]

Unsurprisingly, you've failed to read the entire Statute of Westminster, which states: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof" [emphasis mine]. The South African government "approved" of the King's decision (which was hardly a voluntary one) when it gave its request for and consent to, precisely as per the statute, the enactment of the British His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, well before the South African parliament passed its own act recognising the abdication. The additional legislation in South Africa was unnecessary and was only created as an extra guarantee of the elimination of the Duke of Windsor and his heirs from the line of succession to the South African throne.

Quote the section of the Act of Settlement that disallows Canada from passing laws related to its line of succession. Oh, wait... you don't do requests, of course. Good thing, I guess, because the Act of Settlement says nothing of the kind. See the above history of what took place in South Africa to understand what took place in Canada.

The statute of westminister does.

The External Relations Act 1936 made George VI King of Ireland.

It was backdated to 1936 a day after everyone else sacked the thrones. The retroactive application would have no bearing on the illegality because the Irish Free state was a seperate throne, under a new constitution under a different throne.

The abdication is not in question.

If rule of law is just political rather than legal then arguing de jure law is of little use to someone who only recognizes de facto contexts. In that case anything related to rule of law is of no use communicating to you because you do not support de jure rule - thus are a supporter of corrutpion and anarchy.

Edited September 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

The statute of westminister does.

You said the Act of Settlement did. The Statute of Westminster does not.

It was backdated to 1936 a day after everyone else sacked the thrones. The retroactive application would have no bearing on the illegality because the Irish Free state was a seperate throne, under a new constitution under a different throne.

It wasn't backdated at all; Edward abdicated the throne of Ireland a day after he gave up the thrones of the other Commonwealth Realms. The requirement that the lines of succession be in synch is spelled out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, not within the body of the act itself; it is thus only a convention that all the realms keep their lines parallel:

The preamble of the Statute of Westminster also stated a more specific conventional rule which had been first agreed to by the 1929 Imperial Conference: "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".

Canadian Indepence

Ireland for 24 hours went against that not very old and uncemented at the time convention. That doesn't mean, however, that when it did quickly bring its laws in line with those in the other realms, the changes were invalid.

[ToadBrother]

Ireland for 24 hours went against that not very old and uncemented at the time convention. That doesn't mean, however, that when it did quickly bring its laws in line with those in the other realms, the changes were invalid.

Let's not forget here that de Valera was playing a bit of a game. Why anyone would put any stock in Ireland's actions at this time is beyond me. It's the best argument William's got, I suppose, but it's pretty piss-poor. De Valera's maneuvering was in all likelihood completely unconstitutional, but Britain by this point just wanted to be rid of the Free State and never bothered doing much about it. Certainly none of the other Realms behaved in such a way, and all recognized without any kind of weird brinkmanship the constitutionality of the Statute of Westminster.

[dpwozney]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100909/CGY_oilsands_Stelmach_100909/20100909/?hub=CalgaryHome

Stelmach says he was impressed when Pelosi said that the Americans are trying to reduce their dependency on oil from foreign countries, but didn't include Canada in that group.

Is the "Province of Alberta" now the 51st state?

Edited September 9, 2010 by dpwozney