charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 In your view, is the “Sovereign of Canada” not sovereign? If you accept the Constitution Act, 1982 as being valid, then you have to agree that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God. There is no such thing as the "Sovereign of Canada", except to suggest that the Sovereign of Canada is "The Queen". Canada is NOT a sovereign nation but our government is a mere Crown Corporation, subject to the Constitution prescribed by the Queen of Canada. I agree that Canada was founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God. That does not imply that I believe in a God, or many, or none. It is a mere recognition that the Constitution was founded on those principles. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I agree that Canada was founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God. That does not imply that I believe in a God, or many, or none. It is a mere recognition that the Constitution was founded on those principles. Its more than just that however, the Crown supercedes the Constitutiuon and establishes a paradigm in which real power and authority always flow down in our society, not up as we're lead to believe when we vote. If it was otherwise the people would be the one's holding a mace above the head of their government. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Its more than just that however, the Crown supercedes the Constitutiuon and establishes a paradigm in which real power and authority always flow down in our society, not up as we're lead to believe when we vote. That would be scarey if true, but it ain't. The crown is subject to the constitution and not the other way around. see magna carta Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Canada is NOT a sovereign nation. Good grief; there you go again. If Canada is not a sovereign nation, then Canada's monarch is not a sovereign. Pray tell, then, who is the Queen of Canada subordinate to? Quote
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The Crown supercedes the Constitutiuon and establishes a paradigm in which real power and authority always flow down in our society, not up as we're lead to believe when we vote. Only in a world where the Magna Carta had never been written would your statement be true. Since 1215 the predecessor of our monarchy has been bound by law; today everyone in our society, including the reigning monarch, recognises the supremacy of law. Hence, the coronation oath contains a promise to govern us "according to our laws and customs." Authority doesn't now flow down; rather, it flows in a circle: the people permit the monarch to hold all power with which he or she governs the people. Constitutional monarchy, not absolute. Quote
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 There is no such thing as the "Sovereign of Canada", except to suggest that the Sovereign of Canada is "The Queen". Canada is NOT a sovereign nation but our government is a mere Crown Corporation, subject to the Constitution prescribed by the Queen of Canada. I agree that Canada was founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God. That does not imply that I believe in a God, or many, or none. It is a mere recognition that the Constitution was founded on those principles. Your “Sovereign of Canada” is not sovereign. The Sovereign is sovereign, by definition. So, your “Sovereign of Canada” is not the Sovereign. Quote
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 That would be scarey if true, but it ain't. The crown is subject to the constitution and not the other way around. see magna carta Maybe you should go see it, especially what it has to say about habeus corpus. The magna carta sounds good in theory but in practice it leaves much to be desired. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Good grief; there you go again. If Canada is not a sovereign nation, then Canada's monarch is not a sovereign. Pray tell, then, who is the Queen of Canada subordinate to? If you accept the Constitution Act, 1982 as being valid, then you have to agree that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize that the Queen is not supreme. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Its more than just that however, the Crown supercedes the Constitutiuon and establishes a paradigm in which real power and authority always flow down in our society, not up as we're lead to believe when we vote. That would be scarey if true, but it ain't. The crown is subject to the constitution and not the other way around. see magna carta Maybe you should go see it, especially what it has to say about habeus corpus. The magna carta sounds good in theory but in practice it leaves much to be desired. Everyone has the right to on arrest or detention a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. I'm not sure how your non sequitor supports your erroneous assertion that the crown supercedes the constitution or why the enshrining of habeas corpus in the constitution is germane to that point. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Only in a world where the Magna Carta had never been written would your statement be true. Since 1215 the predecessor of our monarchy has been bound by law; today everyone in our society, including the reigning monarch, recognises the supremacy of law. Hence, the coronation oath contains a promise to govern us "according to our laws and customs." Authority doesn't now flow down; rather, it flows in a circle: the people permit the monarch to hold all power with which he or she governs the people. Constitutional monarchy, not absolute. What I meant is that the supremacy of god as symbolized by the crown supercedes our constitution, it says so right at the top. Perhaps if the magna carta had included atheists in its list of authors it would be more in tune with and better reflect reality. I suspect most of the so-called freemen who did write it would have cheerfully burned these at the stake and no doubt the kings, lords and church would have enthusiastically joined them. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I'm not sure how your non sequitor supports your erroneous assertion that the crown supercedes the constitution or why the enshrining of habeas corpus in the constitution is germane to that point. I'm not about to take your opinions on the constitution or the magna carta very seriously in light of your suggestion that police should investigate the crap out of anyone who decides to ask for a search warrant before submitting to having their home searched. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) I'm not about to take your opinions on the constitution or the magna carta very seriously in light of your suggestion that police should investigate the crap out of anyone who decides to ask for a search warrant before submitting to having their home searched. In other words you admit that you once again don't really understand what you are babbling about. I agree. And BTW, it's not my opinion that habeas corpus is enshrined in the constitution, it is fact. Edited November 16, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 In other words you admit that you once again don't really understand what you are babbling about. No, I simply don't believe you have the moral or ethical background to comment on things like rights and freedoms. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) That would be scarey if true, but it ain't. The crown is subject to the constitution and not the other way around. see magna carta "The Crown" aka "The Queen" is not subject to the Constitution but is the master of it. And the will of the people has no place in Canada, save and except election time where voting feigns some choice. In reality, law is derived from the top down always either being an invention of the government bureaucracy (confirmed by Parliament)or by order of the court (The Queen's representative on domestic matters). Edited November 16, 2009 by charter.rights Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
M.Dancer Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 No, I simply don't believe you have the moral or ethical background to comment on things like rights and freedoms. Spoken like a true cryoto totalitarian, trying to stifle debate simply because you don't have the smarts to engage in iot without the clear and present danger of looking stupid. Not sure what credentials a crypto totalitarian has to discuss freedom, other than the desire to place limits on those he doesn't like.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 If you accept the Constitution Act, 1982 as being valid, then you have to agree that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize that the Queen is not supreme. It is exactly because I accept the validity of the Constitution Act 1982 that I recognise the Queen is supreme; the patriated constitution makes the Queen both the pinnacle of our sytem of government and subordinate to no other. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 What I meant is that the supremacy of god as symbolized by the crown supercedes our constitution, it says so right at the top. At the top of what? Well, no matter, anyway; god's supremacy is not symbolsed by the Crown. The monarch is quite subordinate to god. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 "The Crown" aka "The Queen" is not subject to the Constitution but is the master of it. And the will of the people has no place in Canada, save and except election time where voting feigns some choice. In reality, law is derived from the top down always either being an invention of the government bureaucracy (confirmed by Parliament)or by order of the court (The Queen's representative on domestic matters). Guardian, not master. Two completely different concepts. An odd concept is yours that the required approval of the elected representatives of the voting public for any policy or law coming from the "top" is a sign that the people have no place in Canada. Did you not notice responsible government has been a functioning part of our constitution for the past century and a half? Quote
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 It is exactly because I accept the validity of the Constitution Act 1982 that I recognise the Queen is supreme; the patriated constitution makes the Queen both the pinnacle of our sytem of government and subordinate to no other. If you accept the validity of the Constitution Act, 1982, then you agree with what it states. The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 If you accept the validity of the Constitution Act, 1982, then you agree with what it states. The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God. Yes, alright; I meant the Queen is supreme in our system of government. As I noted here, I recognise that the Queen is not superior to god. But that does not negate the Queen's - and thus Canada's - sovereinty; unless you want to argue that god is a foreign government and Canada is a colony of Heaven. Quote
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 At the top of what? The CONSTITUTION. Well, no matter, anyway; god's supremacy is not symbolsed by the Crown. The monarch is quite subordinate to god. God is symbolized by the crown and we're expected to subordinate ourselves to it, with all the fawning obsequiousness of a lamb. I just can't do it. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) The CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION consists of multiple documents and unwritten conventions. So, where is its top, then? God is symbolized by the crown and we're expected to subordinate ourselves to it, with all the fawning obsequiousness of a lamb.I just can't do it. You just can't adhere to a fantasy you dreamt up? Er, then stop creating fantasies about how the Crown represents god. This is 2009, not 1009. [sp] Edited November 16, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Yes, alright; I meant the Queen is supreme in our system of government. As I noted here, I recognise that the Queen is not superior to god. But that does not negate the Queen's - and thus Canada's - sovereinty; unless you want to argue that god is a foreign government and Canada is a colony of Heaven. Your system of government does not exclude God, so the Queen is not supreme in your system of government. Your system of government does not exclude God, so the Queen is not sovereign in your system of government. Quote
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) If you accept the validity of the Constitution Act, 1982, then you agree with what it states. The Constitution Act, 1982 states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, which means that the Queen is not supreme because the Queen is not God. No it doesn't. The absence of "The Queen" or "The Crown" in the context of the Constitution is irrelevant. Since the Queen signed the thing, she holds legislative power over it (and Canada). Recognizing the supremacy of God does not mean that only God controls us. Just in the same way that recognition that we believe in the rule of law means we are exclusively bound by rules. Still...we believe in the principles or both. Edited November 16, 2009 by charter.rights Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) Your system of government does not exclude God, so the Queen is not supreme in your system of government. Your system of government does not exclude God, so the Queen is not sovereign in your system of government. No, it doesn't exclude god. It also doesn't say god is the governor of Canada. [rewrite] Edited November 16, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
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.