Why the hate for harper?

[Shady]

Well I hope this would have been educational, to see how peole think ,but if this is going to turn into another king charles thread ,then screw it.

Yeah. Unfortunately there are zealots in this forum that make it almost impossible to discuss certain issues.

[ToadBrother]

Well I hope this would have been educational, to see how peole think ,but if this is going to turn into another king charles thread ,then screw it.

It's simple. In the Westminster system as practiced throughout the Commonwealth Realms, Parliament is supreme over the executive. The reason to bring up the history is because the formalized document that creates that constitutional reality was the Bill of Rights 1689, which extinguished the notion that the Sovereign could use his prerogatives in defiance of Parliament, to end the various special rights (including, whether you like it or not, the idea that certain foreign affairs carried by the executive could be done without the oversight of Parliament).

In our constitution, even though Ministers are almost always from Parliament, they are Ministers of the Crown, and thus represent the executive branch. As such they cannot defy the will of Parliament, cannot hope to have any of their executive actions, orders and yes, documents, kept away from Parliament if Parliament so chooses to see those documents. Parliament may, at its own pleasure, opt not to look. I have used the example of WWII, where Parliaments throughout the British Empire largely chose to "look the other way" over strategy, communications and co-ordination with their allies and fellow realms, and other issues of security. That is Parliament's right, but in no way did Prime Ministers like Churchill actually take the position that Parliament had no right, and in fact he took a lot of heat from Parliament over the loss of Hong Kong and Singapore, for instance.

This is the way our system works, and has worked for over three centuries. If you want to ignore the reasons why it works the way it does, then fine, though I think looking at the history of our system explains a great deal as to why it works the way it does.

In the Commonwealth Realms there is no notion of executive privilege. It is a fundamentally American idea, and one down there that still causes considerable controversy because it can be so easily abused to hide misconduct (Nixon attempted to use the argument of national security and executive privilege to prevent the release of the Watergate tapes, for instance).

The Tory argument that certain pieces of legislation surrounding state secrets automatically included Parliament was ludicrous. None of the legislation explicitly stated that Parliament was effectively legislating its long-held rights over the Crown in such matters, and to do so would have been, effectively, a constitutional change. In effect, the Tory position was that somehow Parliament had inadvertently altered its constitutional role, a position that the majority of Parliament, pretty much every constitutional expert out there and, ultimately, the Speaker rejected. That's not to say that Parliament might not opt to limit its role of oversight, but most certainly it would have to be explicit legislation that served to amend those rights and privileges.

Beyond that, this has never actually been an issue before. A number of committees over the decades have dealt with secrets. The solutions have been there for a long time; in-camera meetings, allowing a small group of MPs to review documents and evidence, and so forth.

But if you have some evidence of some substantial shift in our constitution in the last six or seven years, then by all means provide the evidence.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah. Unfortunately there are zealots in this forum that make it almost impossible to discuss certain issues.

Which translates to "They won't by my B.S." Neither you, any Tory or the Government itself was ever able to justify the position that Parliament somehow doesn't have absolute authority over the Crown.

[Shady]

Which translates to "They won't by my B.S." Neither you, any Tory or the Government itself was ever able to justify the position that Parliament somehow doesn't have absolute authority over the Crown.

I'm not sure why you continue to refuse the issue of national security.

Final say over precisely what secrets on detainees can be made public – without harming national security – will rest with a three-person panel of outside arbiters selected jointly by the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois.

Link

So how does this new panel fit in with you and Charles I?

Constitutional expert Ned Franks, a professor emeritus at Queen’s University, said the deal sets up an official and standard process for exchanges of national secrets that might have taken place informally in previous decades.

“It’s establishing a formal procedure for something that has happened in the past ... say during the Second World War. Mackenzie King would have talked with the leader of the Opposition from time to time,” Prof. Franks said.

Link

Seems like Constitutional professors don't agree with what you've been posting. Sounds like you have in fact, been acting like a crazy person.

[Smallc]

What the links say is that nothing can be kept secret from parliament. It can be kept secret from the public....unless of course Parliament decides otherwise.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure why you continue to refuse the issue of national security.

Because there have been plenty of other times in our system's history when national security was an issue and the Government didn't make the argument that Parliament's constitutional rights were null and void. As far as national security goes, I'd say Afghanistan is pretty low on the crises list when put against, say, the Cold War or WWII.

So how does this new panel fit in with you and Charles I?

The panel means Parliament still calls the shots. The Speaker made it clear that it was a matter of privilege and if the government didn't comply, it would go before the House.

like Constitutional professors don't agree with what you've been posting. Sounds like you have in fact, been acting like a crazy person.

Really? Read your own source. I'd love to hear of any expert on the Westminster system who says the executive has any power to defy Parliament? I do love how you just sort of make this kind of bullcrap up. Do you honestly think you can win against me in a game of "constitutional rights of Parliament"?

I can only assume one of two things. Either you're an illiterate idiot or you're just a bad liar. I'm going for the latter, which you should see as a compliment.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

You're acting like a crazy person. There's no need to refer to Kings of England several hundreds of years ago.

Oof. Myata syndrome is spreading.

[ToadBrother]

Oof. Myata syndrome is spreading.

At least Myata and Eyeball stand on the side of more democracy, even if their ideas can be quite out there. Shady, on the other hand, stands on the side of autocracy, of an executive that can hide its deeds and misdeeds behind a veil of invented executive privilege. I mean, the notion exists in the United States, and has been a thorn in the side of Congress and the judiciary for much of the United States' history. Why on Earth would we want to hamstring our own legislative branch in such a way? And why would we want to do it over a conflict as small as Afghanistan, when it hasn't been necessary during such truly critical wars like the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the wars of British Imperial expansion, WWI and WWII? I mean, the whole justification itself is absurd. Afghanistan is a cake walk, a veritable ant before the elephant of such mighty conflicts as the two World Wars, and in none of those did the Governments of His Majesty's Realms produce any notion of executive privilege.

This is why not teaching history is such a catastrophe. Look at the resentment that Tory supports like PIK and Shady show towards history. They fear it and despise it, because they don't know it, and don't want to know it. For them there is only today, and the errors and successes of the past are meaningless. They are shameless and probably incurable demagogues, fixated so solely on their tribal identity as Conservatives that all else can dispensed with.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I mean, the notion exists in the United States, and has been a thorn in the side of Congress and the judiciary for much of the United States' history.

It's not a "notion" in the United States....it is an element of powers separation and enumeration affirmed by the "judiciary" (Supreme Court). Justice Burger specifically cited the legitimacy of such privilege for national security reasons. But don't worry, it doesn't apply to Canada.

[ToadBrother]

It's not a "notion" in the United States....it is an element of powers separation and enumeration affirmed by the "judiciary" (Supreme Court). Justice Burger specifically cited the legitimacy of such privilege for national security reasons. But don't worry, it doesn't apply to Canada.

I'm well aware of what it is, and both of us, I'm sure, are aware of the potential for abuse. Of course, the American system has the advantage that the US President is (almost) directly elected, meaning, in large terms, he is still directly accountable to the voters.

But I do hope this doesn't turn into a "my system is better than your system" kind of debate, because you'll find, all in all, I would agree with you. Of course the Founding Fathers had the advantage of being able to make a governing system from scratch, whereas, with us, it's kind of a mass of amendments, interpretations, protocols and conventions. Still, at the end of the day, both systems produce reasonable stable, effective governments, and also produce no lack of crooks, cranks and fools who willfully or through stupidity manage to mess things up.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm well aware of what it is, and both of us, I'm sure, are aware of the potential for abuse. Of course, the American system has the advantage that the US President is (almost) directly elected, meaning, in large terms, he is still directly accountable to the voters.

Then why make the comparison at all, since it does not apply? Is this just another American "bogeyman" argument so often used in these discussions? Flaming on Harper does not require an American accelerant.

[Michael Hardner]

Is this just another American "bogeyman" argument so often used in these discussions?

Butch_Cheney - can't you just accept that your country is interesting and worthy of comment ?

[ToadBrother]

Then why make the comparison at all, since it does not apply? Is this just another American "bogeyman" argument so often used in these discussions? Flaming on Harper does not require an American accelerant.

The comparison was made to show that executive privilege is abusable and problematic, and that it doesn't fit well within the Westminster system, which gives the Executive considerably greater powers via access to the Royal Prerogatives than one finds in presidential systems like the US.

Man, you're bloody touchy. This is an open discussion forum. I am allowed to bring up the United States you know, and you don't have to view its every mention by a Canadian as some sort of grave insult. Are you that insecure that you have to act like some sort of jingoistic nutbar? I mean, if this all bothers you this much, then maybe you should find some forum where they do nothing but mock Canadians.

[bush_cheney2004]

Butch_Cheney - can't you just accept that your country is interesting and worthy of comment ?

It's much more than that....it apparently provides the only framwework with which to define Canadian proceedings. I would think somebody here could formulate a domestic historical perspective on "executive privilege" and "Parliamentary privilege" without always going for the easy American rimshot.

Why is there no such depth presented here? Is it not interesting?

[bush_cheney2004]

The comparison was made to show that executive privilege is abusable and problematic, and that it doesn't fit well within the Westminster system, which gives the Executive considerably greater powers via access to the Royal Prerogatives than one finds in presidential systems like the US.

Correct...it does not apply. It is a false construct offered to invoke past, high profile experiences from the U.S. in an effort to put PM Harper in a bad light, all while you acknowledge that a Canadian PM has far more unchecked power than a US president.

Man, you're bloody touchy. This is an open discussion forum. I am allowed to bring up the United States you know, and you don't have to view its every mention by a Canadian as some sort of grave insult. Are you that insecure that you have to act like some sort of jingoistic nutbar? I mean, if this all bothers you this much, then maybe you should find some forum where they do nothing but mock Canadians.

As others have noted.....opinions are like assholes...we all have one. I must tolerate yours, and you...mine if staying engaged to this forum. You could have selected the ignore option long ago. I will continue to correct your false or misleading depictions of American government or culture, as I am very qualified to do so.

[ToadBrother]

It's much more than that....it apparently provides the only framwework with which to define Canadian proceedings. I would think somebody here could formulate a domestic historical perspective on "executive privilege" and "Parliamentary privilege" without always going for the easy American rimshot.

Why is there no such depth presented here? Is it not interesting?

Are you seriously claiming that that was my intent?

You need to do a whole lot of growing up, pal. Not everyone north of the border is anti-American. There's a significant amount I admire about the system, but there is this notion in political sciences of comparing systems. Is it my understanding that you're now the Poli Sci Cop, dedicated to protecting the United States from any Westminster bastard who dares to even mention your system of government?

[ToadBrother]

Correct...it does not apply...

Of course it bloody applies, you raving imbecile. The Tories up here tried to assert an American-style notion of executive privilege, and I did my best to explain why such a notion is very dangerous in a Westminster system, and what's more to point out that even in a system where it is designed as part of a separation of powers it can be problematic.

I can understand, in a sort of detached way, your defense of your country, but it's the implied defense of Stephen Harper that raises my eyebrows.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

This isn't a case of executive priviledge. There were national security concerns, which have been worked out. ToadBrother's under the impression that Parlaiment can snap its fingers, and any national security issues are thrown out the window. All over information the opposition wants for political purposes. They couldn't give a crap about the Canadian military.

In fact, they want it to smear the Canadian military.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Shady

[ToadBrother]

This isn't a case of executive priviledge. There were national security concerns, which have been worked out. ToadBrother's under the impression that Parlaiment can snap its fingers, and any national security issues are thrown out the window. All over information the opposition wants for political purposes. They couldn't give a crap about the Canadian military.

I'm not under that impression. That's the way it is. Parliament is supreme over the executive. End of story. That's the way our system has functioned for three centuries.

[Shady]

Parliament is supreme over the executive. End of story. That's the way our system has functioned for three centuries.

No, actually it isn't. National security has always been an issue when certain information is asked to be made public. And Canada isn't close to 3 centuries old. It's good you know you're history!

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you seriously claiming that that was my intent?

I have no idea what your intent was, as it lacks any contrast or comparisons to actual Canadian proceedings. Going back hundreds of years to still other nations is little substance for the domestic debate of what the present Prime Minister is or is not doing out of the norm.

You need to do a whole lot of growing up, pal. Not everyone north of the border is anti-American. There's a significant amount I admire about the system, but there is this notion in political sciences of comparing systems. Is it my understanding that you're now the Poli Sci Cop, dedicated to protecting the United States from any Westminster bastard who dares to even mention your system of government?

No, far from it, I would expect more detail that stands on its own historical merit for the Westminster system as it applies to Canada, but instead what we usually get is more low hanging fruit from the very different (American) tree. Where are the historical court rulings, Parliamentary proceedings, and general depth of analysis?

[ToadBrother]

No, actually it isn't.

Yes, I'm afraid it is.

National security has always been an issue when certain information is asked to be made public.

Making unredacted documents available in-camera is not releasing them publicly.

And Canada isn't close to 3 centuries old. It's good you know you're history!

I do. Our Parliament was founded out of the colonial Parliaments of British North America, but under the same constitutional umbrella as Westminster. Apparently you neither know your history nor our constitution. The Bill of Rights 1689, just like the Magna Carte a long before it, are among the series of documents that make up the written part of the Canadian constitution. This is grade 10 social studies. Did you fail the class?

[bush_cheney2004]

No, actually it isn't. National security has always been an issue when certain information is asked to be made public. And Canada isn't close to 3 centuries old. It's good you know you're history!

Right....how about more Canadian history? How about Parliament's non-role in NATO's Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)? Did PM Chretien overstep his authority in that bombing campaign?

[g_bambino]

No, actually it isn't. National security has always been an issue when certain information is asked to be made public. And Canada isn't close to 3 centuries old.

Yea, actually it is. National security is a concern, but it doesn't diminish, trump, or eradicate parliament's supremacy over cabinet. Our constitution is a continuation of one that evolved over more than a thousand years and it does presently contain legislation that is three centuries old.

[Shady]

I do. Our Parliament was founded out of the colonial Parliaments of British North America, but under the same constitutional umbrella as Westminster. Apparently you neither know your history nor our constitution. The Bill of Rights 1689, just like the Magna Carte a long before it, are among the series of documents that make up the written part of the Canadian constitution. This is grade 10 social studies.

Well, you're right about one thing. This is definitely a highschool level perspective you're bringing to the discussion. Anyone with half a brain knows that each country puts together its own form of democracy/representative government. Our system of governance may have been adopted from the Westminster model, but we've made our own modifications to the process along the way.

You seem to think there's a cookie-cutter approach that fits to every country. That's not the case. If you get a chance to take courses in political science beyond the highschool level, you'll understand what I'm talking about.