g_bambino Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Waiting for what? I am waiting for you to show me the UK Constitution prohibiting them from revisiting Legislation pertaining to Canada. If its not in the UK Constitution the UK parliament is able to revisisit any legislation pertaining to Canada at any time. Waiting for you to show where I reversed my position, of course; that's what you claimed I did. Obviously I didn't. What I also didn't say was that the British parliament couldn't revisit legislation; in the British construct, parliament is supreme and may do whatever it pleases. However, you're obviously attempting to infer that if Britain did rescind the Statute of Westminster, then Canada, Jamaica, Australia, Tuvau, New Zealand, Saint Kitts, & etc., would all revert to colonies of the UK again. Naturally, that's total lunacy; not only is the Statute of Westminster now Canadian law, but both the Canada Act 1982 and the Constitution Act 1982 of which it is a part also dictate in more clear terms that the UK cannot touch Canadian law - as in, the laws of Canada. So, who gives a crap what the British parliament does with legislation pertaining to Canada? They could amend and make laws creating Canada as a penal colony for British soccer hooligans and it wouldn't mean a thing to Canada because the country is completely sovereign and always will be until its parliament says otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Patriated its constitution? I doubt he'll get the point; the concepts of a divisible crown and personal union are completely lost on him. Hence, he still thinks Canada is ultimately subject to the British government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Waiting for what? I am waiting for you to show me the UK Constitution prohibiting them from revisiting Legislation pertaining to Canada. If its not in the UK Constitution the UK parliament is able to revisisit any legislation pertaining to Canada at any time. It is in the Statute of Westminster, which is a peice that makes up part of the UK consitution. It has been post for many many times, you just are unable to comprehend what you are reading I suppose. go back and re-read the thread you will find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 It is in the Statute of Westminster, which is a peice that makes up part of the UK consitution. It has been post for many many times, you just are unable to comprehend what you are reading I suppose. go back and re-read the thread you will find it. Link please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Sometimes the Court will declare a piece of legislation unconstitutional in order to avoid the consequences of an executive refusal to administer the law. In fact the very first exercise of the Supreme Court's power (not in Constitution text by the way) to rule on constitionality of a law was to strike down a law granting the Courts the power to issue writs of mandamus directed at the President, to force Jefferson to deliver a diplomatic commission to Marbury. The real reason was the Jefferson was never going to obey a contrary ruling. Doing this only makes it so the congress/parliament has to deal with that area again. And what if Canada doesn't obey? I am sure the be British Army would wipe the floor of Canada. The people of Quebec would do nothing to support insurrection Canada so that would leave 25 million people to stand against 60 million Brits and their allies which could be the US and whatever other country. Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and (the later separately administered) Newfoundland were acquired by Britain long before 1759. But you knew that. What's your point? Patriated its constitution? paâ‹…triâ‹…ate to transfer (legislation) to the authority of an autonomous country from its previous mother country. Show where in the 1982 Constitution Canada has been patriated from the British Monarch. The Queen is was the sovereign of Canada before the 1982 Constititution and is the sovereign after the 1982 Constitution. I would have say the 1982 Constitution was the worse thing ever for Canada because it has created dimentia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Waiting for you to show where I reversed my position, of course; that's what you claimed I did. Obviously I didn't. What I also didn't say was that the British parliament couldn't revisit legislation; in the British construct, parliament is supreme and may do whatever it pleases. However, you're obviously attempting to infer that if Britain did rescind the Statute of Westminster, then Canada, Jamaica, Australia, Tuvau, New Zealand, Saint Kitts, & etc., would all revert to colonies of the UK again. Naturally, that's total lunacy; not only is the Statute of Westminster now Canadian law, but both the Canada Act 1982 and the Constitution Act 1982 of which it is a part also dictate in more clear terms that the UK cannot touch Canadian law - as in, the laws of Canada. So, who gives a crap what the British parliament does with legislation pertaining to Canada? They could amend and make laws creating Canada as a penal colony for British soccer hooligans and it wouldn't mean a thing to Canada because the country is completely sovereign and always will be until its parliament says otherwise. The statue of Westminister only relates to 5 countries South Africa (gone), Ireland (gone), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It stated to exit the Commonwealth Canada had to get the approval of the parliaments of these commonwealth countries. Canada has never satisfied the conditions of the statue of Westminister and because time has made the document out of step with reality it is actually no longer valid and ought to be revisited and amended to reflect the New world dynamics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Link please. Like hell I posted it for you in this thread once already, if you don't beleive me go find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) The statue of Westminister only relates to 5 countries South Africa (gone), Ireland (gone), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It stated to exit the Commonwealth Canada had to get the approval of the parliaments of these commonwealth countries. Canada has never satisfied the conditions of the statue of Westminister and because time has made the document out of step with reality it is actually no longer valid and ought to be revisited and amended to reflect the New world dynamics. Putting aside the numerous inaccuracies in your post, nothing in it is of relevance to your claim that the UK parliament can legislate for Canada. That assertion was dispelled both here and here, but you simply ignored both and continue to make ridiculous contentions. I imagine you'll only do the same to this as well. [+] Edited November 30, 2009 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Canada has never satisfied the conditions of the statue of Westminister and because time has made the document out of step with reality it is actually no longer valid and ought to be revisited and amended to reflect the New world dynamics. Canada now has an amending formula and thus has satisfied the conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I would have say the 1982 Constitution was the worse thing ever for Canada because it has created dimentia. Dementia is definitely part of this thread and I think you were perhaps born on the day the 1982 Constitution went into effect. Coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I'm really not sure where you come down on the issue of the Queen's power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers How about we petition the Queen to Fire the Conservatives, the Liberals and all political parties out of existence forcing New parties to be created in their place to start Canada off on a clean slate. Face it Canada is in entrenchly corrupt country where the Conservatives or Liberals use the Government for their personal benefit. I thought from your illustrious writings on this thread that you want less Queen, not more. Make up your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm really not sure where you come down on the issue of the Queen's power. I thought from your illustrious writings on this thread that you want less Queen, not more. Make up your mind. I could care less about the queen but living in denial doesn't get rid of her. Yes the 1982 constitution created an amending formula, big deal. The queen still remains the sovereign of Canada. What does sovereign mean? She can unilaterally amend the 1982 constitution or effect other legislation on Canada via the UK parliment as she has done all throughout Canada's history. Canada's parliamentary structure is designed for oversight via the Governor General. The GG is not doing the job so the right course is for Canadian to elect and chose the GG through an election. That way the GG will be in position to ensure Canada is going in the direction it should be. This can be done if the monarch defers this onto the Canadian populace. How did Ireland not satisfy the Statue of Westminister and become independent of the UK. It created/established a constitution which was voted on by the people and abided by for 10 years until the UK let them go. That is the only way Canada will be free from the Monarch, but be sure the day Canada walks that road, Canada will be minus Quebec. Until then, The UK and the Monarch has dominion over Canada. As a lawyer you to know property rights. Who established Canada, who structured Canada, Who defended Canada? and the list goes on. What has Canada done to compensate the UK and the Monarch for Canada? If you are a GM worker, are you entitled to own the GM company? If you rent a house, are entitled to own the house without paying for it? Where does it state Canada is entitled to Canada without compensating the UK and the monarch? Canada is a sleeping dog and time will tick on but that doesn't mean eventaully this will not boil over to a showdown. Canada is property and contrary to what is thought on this thread it is the property of the Queen and the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Putting aside the numerous inaccuracies in your post, nothing in it is of relevance to your claim that the UK parliament can legislate for Canada. That assertion was dispelled both here and here, but you simply ignored both and continue to make ridiculous contentions. I imagine you'll only do the same to this as well. Canada is property and contrary to what is thought on this thread it is the property of the Queen and the UK. See? I knew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I could care less about the queen but living in denial doesn't get rid of her. Yes the 1982 constitution created an amending formula, big deal. The queen still remains the sovereign of Canada. What does sovereign mean? She can unilaterally amend the 1982 constitution or effect other legislation on Canada via the UK parliment as she has done all throughout Canada's history.And how many times did London come calling after 1931? None. Canada's parliamentary structure is designed for oversight via the Governor General. The GG is not doing the job so the right course is for Canadian to elect and chose the GG through an election. That way the GG will be in position to ensure Canada is going in the direction it should be. This can be done if the monarch defers this onto the Canadian populace. And how do you propose to avoid a problem with two, not one centers of powers, both with a popular mandate? Would you want to drive in a car with two steering wheels, two accelerator pedals and (unlike a driver ed car) neither able to override the other?How did Ireland not satisfy the Statue of Westminister and become independent of the UK. It created/established a constitution which was voted on by the people and abided by for 10 years until the UK let them go. That is the only way Canada will be free from the Monarch, but be sure the day Canada walks that road, Canada will be minus Quebec.So I guess you like the situation that's prevailed in Northern Ireland since that rupture to repeat itself with Quebec, only worse since it would more or less landlock the Atlantic provinces? Until then, The UK and the Monarch has dominion over Canada. As a lawyer you to know property rights. Who established Canada, who structured Canada, Who defended Canada? and the list goes on.A combination of Upper Canadians, Lower Canadians, Maritimers, pioneers on the prairie, pioneers who established New Iceland in what is now Manitoba, the Hudson Bay Company. What has Canada done to compensate the UK and the Monarch for Canada?I give up? Who should pay which British citizen or group of citizens and/or the Monarch how much? If you are a GM worker, are you entitled to own the GM company? If you rent a house, are entitled to own the house without paying for it?Ask the NDP that question. </sarcasm> or </exasperation> Where does it state Canada is entitled to Canada without compensating the UK and the monarch? Canada is a sleeping dog and time will tick on but that doesn't mean eventaully this will not boil over to a showdown. Canada is property and contrary to what is thought on this thread it is the property of the Queen and the UK. So you're saying that Canada is not entitled to Canada? I'm now totally baffled. </exasperation> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Where does it state Canada is entitled to Canada without compensating the UK and the monarch? Canada is a sleeping dog and time will tick on but that doesn't mean eventaully this will not boil over to a showdown. Canada is property and contrary to what is thought on this thread it is the property of the Queen and the UK. Seeing that Canada doesn't belong to Canada, it never belonged to the British either...except... ...in respect to certain Countries, Territories, and Islands...by the Arrangements made by the said Royal Proclamation... The Quebec Act 1774 The Royal Proclamation 1763 recognized a vast area defined as "Indian Lands" and prohibited subjects from possessing any parts, or making deals for possession or occupation. There have been a dozen or so numbered treaties made that saw limited surrenders of some lands. However, the vast majority of the lands that Canada lays claim to, has never been surrendered and is lawfully under the jurisdiction of various native nations...recognized by the Crown... Edited December 1, 2009 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Seeing that Canada doesn't belong to Canada, it never belonged to the British either...except... the vast majority of the lands that Canada lays claim to, has never been surrendered and is lawfully under the jurisdiction of various native nations...recognized by the Crown... Who knew this thread would attract so many kooks? What CR always likes to forget with his need to believe First Nations are sovereign is that the Crown is Canada. The state is embodied in the Sovereign. Table Research Branch of the House of Commons, Compendium of Procedure In Canada, the state is commonly referred to as "the Crown". Library of Parliament, House of Commons Procedure and Practice The state is also personified by the sovereign. Cabinet Secretary and Clerk of the Executive Council, Executive Government Processes and Procedures in Saskatchewan: A Procedures Manual The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity and authority for all Canadians. The Royal Household, The Queen's role in Canada As Queen of Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is our head of State and a powerful symbol of Canada and Canadian sovereignty. Department of Canadian Heritage, A Crown of Maples The Queen is the legal embodiment of the state at both the national and the provincial levels... she is our sovereign and it is the role of the Queen, recognized by the constitutional law of Canada, to embody the state. Gary Toffoli, Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly The Crown is the consecrated spirit of Canada. Robertson Davies, Hunting Stuart and The Voice of the People It's therefore ludicrous to assert that Canada doesn't belong to Canada, but to First Nations instead. Since 1763, all land in Canada has been under the monarch's sovereignty, including that on which First Nations live. There may be jurisdictional divisions for the purposes of government, but First Nations do not "own" Canada, or indeed any territory, apart from that which the Crown has prescribed for them; they reside on the Queen's land by agreement with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 ...It's therefore ludicrous to assert that Canada doesn't belong to Canada, but to First Nations instead. Since 1763, all land in Canada has been under the monarch's sovereignty, including that on which First Nations live. There may be jurisdictional divisions for the purposes of government, but First Nations do not "own" Canada, or indeed any territory, apart from that which the Crown has prescribed for them; they reside on the Queen's land by agreement with her. Not true according to this Wiki source: About 89% of Canada's land area (8,886,356 km²) is Crown Land, which may either be federal (41%) or provincial (48%); the remaining 11% is privately-owned.[6] ^ a b V.P. NEIMANIS. "Crown Land". The Canadian Encyclopedia: Geography. Historica Foundation of Canada. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002049. Retrieved 2007-02-12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Not true according to this Wiki source:About 89% of Canada's land area (8,886,356 km²) is Crown Land, which may either be federal (41%) or provincial (48%); the remaining 11% is privately-owned. Surely you aren't inferring that privately owned land is beyond the law of the monarch/state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Surely you aren't inferring that privately owned land is beyond the law of the monarch/state. Not for you of course...just everybody else not so beholden to royal reach (and bling). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Not for you of course...just everybody else not so beholden to royal reach (and bling). Well, let's see you test that concept with your property then. Perhaps you could construct a nuclear reactor in your front yard and see if the law of the state doesn't apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Not true according to this Wiki source: About 89% of Canada's land area (8,886,356 km²) is Crown Land, which may either be federal (41%) or provincial (48%); the remaining 11% is privately-owned.[6] ^ a b V.P. NEIMANIS. "Crown Land". The Canadian Encyclopedia: Geography. Historica Foundation of Canada. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002049. Retrieved 2007-02-12. The majority of all "Crown land" is unceded First Nations territory. They have underlying title. That is why the Supreme Court has determined that the Crown must consult, negotiate and accommodate First Nations before development can take place IF such development will affect their rights under the Royal Proclamation, or any other aboriginal right (hunting, fishing, harvesting). There is a difference however, between the Government of Canada and the Crown. They are not one and the same. Edited December 1, 2009 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 And how many times did London come calling after 1931? None. And how do you propose to avoid a problem with two, not one centers of powers, both with a popular mandate? Would you want to drive in a car with two steering wheels, two accelerator pedals and (unlike a driver ed car) neither able to override the other? So I guess you like the situation that's prevailed in Northern Ireland since that rupture to repeat itself with Quebec, only worse since it would more or less landlock the Atlantic provinces? A combination of Upper Canadians, Lower Canadians, Maritimers, pioneers on the prairie, pioneers who established New Iceland in what is now Manitoba, the Hudson Bay Company. I give up? Who should pay which British citizen or group of citizens and/or the Monarch how much? Ask the NDP that question. </sarcasm> or </exasperation> So you're saying that Canada is not entitled to Canada? I'm now totally baffled. </exasperation> Yawn...I pity your clients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yawn...I pity your clients. I try to avoid clients that are both crazy and non-paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I try to avoid clients that are both crazy and non-paying. I guess it is true then...that opposites attract... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 What does all this have with to do with Canadian identity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.