The Federal Republic of Canada

[dpwozney]

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

Alberta oil not 'foreign,' U.S. official tells premiers

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Sep. 9 2010 2:31 PM ET

One of the most powerful politicians in the U.S. said that while Washington wants to wean itself off foreign oil, Canada is the exception because it isn't "foreign," according to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach.

[trimmed]

"She didn't consider Canada to be foreign oil," Stelmach said Thursday, noting that the politicians also spoke about his province's efforts in renewable energy during their dinner meeting on Wednesday. ...

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20100909/wall-pelosi-100909

[Smallc]

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

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

Ummm, it said that Canadian oil wasn't considered foreign, not Alberta oil.

[dpwozney]

Ummm, it said that Canadian oil wasn't considered foreign, not Alberta oil.

The headline that I quoted said "Alberta oil not 'foreign,' U.S. official tells premiers".

[Smallc]

The headline that I quoted said "Alberta oil not 'foreign,' U.S. official tells premiers".

Most of us don't limit our reading to titles.

[jbg]

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

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

I don't carry Pelosi's flag, but I think the U.S. makes a distinction, properly, between the "U.S. and Canada" and the rest of the world.

[dpwozney]

Most of us don't limit our reading to titles.

Are you claiming that the headline I quoted is wrong?

[dpwozney]

I don't carry Pelosi's flag, but I think the U.S. makes a distinction, properly, between the "U.S. and Canada" and the rest of the world.

Anyone can make a distinction, properly, between any grouping of countries and the rest of the world.

[Smallc]

Are you claiming that the headline I quoted is wrong?

Are you claiming that you didn't read beyond the title?

[dpwozney]

Are you claiming that you didn't read beyond the title?

I read beyond the headline. Do you claim that the headline I quoted is wrong?

[William Ashley]

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

Liar.

It wasn't backdated at all;

Liar.

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.

Having a discussion with someone who doesn't respect the law is pretty stupid. Backdating laws doesn't mean crime committed befor the backdate wern't crimes. Much like stating if one country back dates their laws - the situation here is that there is no legal premise for backdating laws. Especially when it is in regard to succession rights. It is simply absurd.

It is TRUE this happened for James after cromwell being retroactively backdated for the period of cromwells reign, but it leaves the realm of LAW (thus legality as opposed to illegality) and goes to the realm of politics.

If you are going to use politics to upsurp law, then what is the point of using the law in the first place? It is redundant.

That is although the role of parliament in large extent - to redefine law - while the monarchs role is to exercise within the law, the crown to exercise within the powers of government, and the throne to uphold the law.

Your arguments are simply inane because they ignore confines of the law.

There are differences in the crowns exercise or in right of the crown exercising statute, and the creation of statute.

How can you make statute if you don't have a crown to exercise parliamentary powers with? More or less the crown of the Irish free state was not the same due to the change of the constitution effecting a differentiation in succession due to westminster.

Retroactively applying the act would mean the act to make the irish free state constituion would be void and it was used to execute the act that did that.. it is a legal paradox.

Edited September 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

PS not only was the external relations act backdated - but it was also repealed. (although within the void of paradox)

In this respect the duke of glouchester would be the king of ireland (although queen elizibeth exercised to create a new crown that merged great britain and northern ireland) one throne as opposed to two...

but Edward was king of ireland I suppose... it gets prety mashed up because of the crown issue.. that is the crown is vacant or rather unbestowed.

although you must question that there would be two thrones at odds with one.

It is odd though because the whole crown of great britain - the cromwell english commonwealth and jacobite stuff all makes for a pretty mixed up state of affairs.

The bottom line here is that it seems that the assemblies have done a better job at regularization than the royal houses over the last 400 or so years.

Oh and the titles do mean something.

This plays back to Canada

because each province has a crown - and so does the federal government... (Queen of Canada, Queen of Ontario, Queen of Quebec etc... I'm not sure about the territories I think they may be under the federal throne) hence the comission deriving from the federal crown..

I'm not 100% sure on how provinces function within a kingdom.

Edited September 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Retroactively applying the act would mean the act to make the irish free state constituion would be void and it was used to execute the act that did that.. it is a legal paradox.

The Free State's stunt when Edward VIII abdicated was obviously unconstitutional, but no one really gave a crap what the Irish Free State said.

But I've already given an example where Parliament had to get acts passed without Royal Assent rubber stamped after the fact; namely the Bill of Rights, 1689, the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. James II had already fled to the Continent, and Parliament passed the act, then when William and Mary took the throne, a new act basically giving retroactive assent to the Bill of Rights and other legislation the thumbs up.

Point set match, William. You're batting 0, and you just keep getting worse.

[William Ashley]

The Free State's stunt when Edward VIII abdicated was obviously unconstitutional, but no one really gave a crap what the Irish Free State said.

But I've already given an example where Parliament had to get acts passed without Royal Assent rubber stamped after the fact; namely the Bill of Rights, 1689, the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. James II had already fled to the Continent, and Parliament passed the act, then when William and Mary took the throne, a new act basically giving retroactive assent to the Bill of Rights and other legislation the thumbs up.

Point set match, William. You're batting 0, and you just keep getting worse.

Annexing an act is possible through an act, it is called ammending it - but you don't warp space time by it. So basically the bill of rights wasn't de jure within the kingdom of William III, until it was annexed under his rule. But the bill of rights is in this case an annex to the act that gave it force. So the bill of rights don't have force - the act that gave it force does. (it is a constitutional document, not a constitutional act)

William didn't have the same crown as far as I am aware it was a parliamentary overthrow. They took the throne and gave it to someone else.

The whole james II thing is interesting though because they had a roman law -- so it was I think actually the catholic law that caused james to come into the crisis he got into. because it was roman law that removed him.

THis might play into the whole Qeubec Catholic thing but I'm not too versed in the quebec civil code and if it is equivolent to the anglican cannons.

Edited September 10, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Liar.

Prove it.

Liar.

Prove it.

[g_bambino]

The Free State's stunt when Edward VIII abdicated was obviously unconstitutional, but no one really gave a crap what the Irish Free State said.

I'm not sure how altering their own constitution was unconstitutional. Devious, dodgy, and self-serving, yes (what a surprise that de Valera went on to become President of Ireland!), but the only possibly unconstitutional part I can see is that one day disalignment between Ireland's line of succession and those in the rest of the Realms. But, if we accept that as unconstitutional, wouldn't that mean the UK parliament had also acted unconstitutionally by passing His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, thereby changing Britain's line of succession, without the IRF's consent?

I think, from my understanding of the circumstances, that because what transpired between Ireland and the rest of the Commonwealth Realms during the abdication crisis only went briefly against an agreement reached between prime ministers at the 1927 Imperial Conference and later written only into the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, no constitutional law was broken, per say. As I mentioned, even if it was already in 1936 considered a convention, it wasn't a very old or well set one. And, as you say, by that time, nobody gave a toss about what Ireland was up to; everyone could tell by that point that de Valera was going to soon get the end he'd been obsessively pursuing.

What was contained within the proper body of the Statute of Westminster was followed to the letter, though: there was no pretense on anyone's part that the British parliament's act effecting the abdication had applicability anywhere outside those countries that'd given their consent to it and the UK itself. Hence, for one day, Edward VIII was quite legally King of Ireland while his brother was king in the rest of the Commonwealth.

Point set match, William. You're batting 0, and you just keep getting worse.

Kid just doesn't know how to quit.

[ToadBrother]

Annexing an act is possible through an act, it is called ammending it - but you don't warp space time by it. So basically the bill of rights wasn't de jure within the kingdom of William III, until it was annexed under his rule. But the bill of rights is in this case an annex to the act that gave it force. So the bill of rights don't have force - the act that gave it force does. (it is a constitutional document, not a constitutional act)

William didn't have the same crown as far as I am aware it was a parliamentary overthrow. They took the throne and gave it to someone else.

I have no idea what the term "annex" is supposed to mean in this context. The Convention Parliament had passed the Act after James II had fled. In the eyes of Parliament, he had willingly vacated his throne. They took the opportunity to enshrine in law that which they had basically gained during the Civil War, that is, the supremacy of Parliament.

The whole james II thing is interesting though because they had a roman law -- so it was I think actually the catholic law that caused james to come into the crisis he got into. because it was roman law that removed him.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Clearly his Catholic leanings and sympathies were the reason the trouble began. England and Scotland were Protestant states, and they were not going to tolerate a Catholic king. It wasn't a Roman law, it was the basic law since the Edward VI that England was a Protestant state, and you couldn't properly have a Catholic head of a Protestant Church. Sadly, I think James II wasn't a bad king, just a couple of centuries ahead of his time, but any rate, though Parliament basically threw him out, they used the technicality that he had fled to the Continent to claim he had vacated the throne, effectively abdicating. Of course it wasn't legal by any means, that's why they got William and Mary to commit to recognizing Parliament's supremacy, so they'd come in and give assent to the acts passed in the absence of a Sovereign, because otherwise those acts had no force of law.

I'm not complaining, though. The Bill of Rights, 1689 created our constitutional system of government, and was even the chief inspiration of the US's own Bill of Rights a century later. It gave me great pleasure to see the Speaker rule earlier this year based on that great document, reiterated in the BNA Act, giving Parliament supremacy over the Executive.

THis might play into the whole Qeubec Catholic thing but I'm not too versed in the quebec civil code and if it is equivolent to the anglican cannons.

The Quebec Act of 1774 guaranteed the Quebecois their civil law system and permitted freedom of religion, thus making any anti-Catholic statutes invalid within the borders of Quebec.

Edited September 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[August1991]

Bump.

Vote, if you haven't.

I still hold to my opinions.

[charter.rights]

Bump.

Vote, if you haven't.

I still hold to my opinions.

They are still minority opinions.

[ToadBrother]

They are still minority opinions.

Yes, the majority opinion out on the street seems to be "Don't we have more important things to think about."

[August1991]

Yes, the majority opinion out on the street seems to be "Don't we have more important things to think about."

I agree, but I also think that Harper is making a mistake with all this Royal nonsense.

If individual provinces want to have the Union Jack or other symbols on their provincial legislature, then it is their choice. But federal institutions must have a broader base.

The long term success of Canada depends on an independent federal state. As I say, I think Harper is making a mistake.

They are still minority opinions.

That's debateable. Anyway, many good ideas started as an extreme minority.

----

Canadian public opinion polls on the monarchy regularly create controversy among both republicans and monarchists alike. All sides acknowledge the lack of general understanding by many Canadians in regards to how our government works and the role the monarchy plays in it. Underscoring this point is the data from the 2002 poll indicating that only 5% of Canadians could correctly identify Queen Elizabeth II as Canada's head of state.

There's also wide disagreement on how a poll question should be worded to avoid skewed results. Monarchists object when 'British' is used to describe what they claim is a distinct Canadian monarchy. We republicans dislike negative terminology such as 'sever' and 'abolish' which distract from what we consider to be a positive, evolutionary step in Canada's development as an independent nation.

....

On top of this is the growing sense of identity and independence of Canadians which has, over the last several decades, produced countless incremental moves away from monarchial influence and references in the government. Noteworthy is the realization that none of these changes has ever been reversed in favour of the monarchy.

Then there's the changing ethnic and cultural demographics of Canada. New immigrants tend not to have the same nostalgic feeling for the monarchy that many native-born Canadians do. Some even come from parts of the world where unpleasant memories of the former British Empire and its colonialist policies are still fresh.

canadian-republic.ca

In general, support for a federal republic has been increasing over the past several decades.

Edited October 17, 2011 by August1991

[olp1fan]

and be like the US?

no thanks, I prefer the monarchy

[g_bambino]

I agree, but I also think that Harper is making a mistake with all this Royal nonsense.

If individual provinces want to have the Union Jack on provincial legislature, then it is their choice. But federal institutions must have a broader, Canadian base.

You assume there's some kind of nationalistic divide between some federal institutions and another: the Crown; as though parliament, the courts, the military, foreign missions, and the like are Canadian and the monarchy is British. You're wrong. The Crown is central to those aforementioned bodies; it's been separate from the British Crown for eighty years. All the present Cabinet has been doing is acknowledging reality: Canada is a sovereign, constitutional monarchy.

In general, support for a federal republic has been increasing over the past several decades.

No, it hasn't.

[Wild Bill]

I agree, but I also think that Harper is making a mistake with all this Royal nonsense.

If individual provinces want to have the Union Jack or other symbols on their provincial legislature, then it is their choice. But federal institutions must have a broader base.

The long term success of Canada depends on an independent federal state. As I say, I think Harper is making a mistake.

I think that once again August you may be showing a biased perspective. I suspect that if we had the data we'd find that 9 out of 10 provinces have little or no problem with references to our monarch.

The 1 out of 10 would be Quebec! If Harper yielded to Quebec's feelings on the matter it would look to TROC that once again we are not a Confederation of 10 but rather a country of only 2 - English and French! That Quebec would have more status than at least 5 of the other provinces put together.

You see, Quebec is the ONLY province that thinks of Canada as 50/50, English and French! Harper has to take that into account.

Moreso, Quebec has decided, for whatever reasons, to not back the ruling party in Ottawa. They did for years with the Liberals and with Mulroney but not any longer. Harper has just proven that he doesn't need Quebec to have a majority.

This means that Quebec has perhaps the least amount of influence on the ruling party that it has had in generations! It couldn't have made itself less of a player in Ottawa than by refusing to give much of any Tory seats and backing almost exclusively those of the Opposition. Worse yet, they've backed the NDP, which is the most unlikely to ever become the ruling party!

So tell me, August, why should Harper even bother worrying about how Quebec feels about federal references to the monarchy? What could he hope to gain? He's making his base happy. Doing otherwise won't likely get him even one more seat in Quebec anyway!

[PIK]

If we give up on what made this country great and become a republic, then we might as well, become the 51st state and that exactly what will happen. Stay the same , and maybe some day when quebec realizes ,it was the evil anglos that saved thier culture and not france that gave them away, will want to join us. And now that they have no say in what is goiung on now, maybe that to will wake them up. Pandering to quebec , is gone, it's over and they better realize that soon.

[bush_cheney2004]

If we give up on what made this country great and become a republic, then we might as well, become the 51st state and that exactly what will happen....

Not an option or choice...Canada cannot become a "51st state". I know that is a popular refrain with which to threaten each other in the confederation, but you guys will just have to figure it out by yourself, just like the Americans did.