The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[g_bambino]

As a proof of your assertion however, that particular clause says nothing. It's only action is all in your mind.

The clause says everything to debunk CR's assertion that the Crown is not subject to the will of the majority of the people. Because you deny the meaning of the clause does not mean the clause means nothing.

Could you please point out the post in this thread in which I "completely" ignore the sources you have presented? Thanks!

No, I can't point out "the" post because you, like CR, have completely ignored the five sources in every subsequent post you've made since the five sources were posted. If you want to review your posts, they're all still there for your perusal. But you're welcome, anyway!

[+]

Edited July 16, 2010 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

This is the most ignorant and flat out retarded thing I have ever read. I'm done here and I've seen all I need to see.

charter.rights, I wish you luck in life, because you're going to need all the help you can get.

May God have mercy on your poor soul.

That is how I predicted it....You can't make a rational argument so you try to take your ball and go away. Such a baby, really.

That is exactly how delusions work. When they are challenged through truth and fact people get a pissy attitude, fight, yell scream stomp their feet and have a regular temper tantrum - exactly as you have demonstrated through-out this entire thread. If your myths and the logic built on those myths get dispelled, your whole world falls apart.

So is it really a personality disorder, or schizophrenia? The blue pill or the red one?

Edited July 16, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

The clause says everything to debunk CR's assertion that the Crown is not subject to the will of the majority of the people. Because you deny the meaning of the clause does not mean the clause means nothing.

Can you point out where I have denied "the meaning of the clause" please? You can't? I didn't think so. I never said the cause "means nothing," I said its only action in this case is a figment of your imagination. The problem here is that you have difficulty understanding English.

No, I can't point out "the" post because you, like CR, have completely ignored the five sources in every subsequent post you've made since the five sources were posted. If you want to review your posts, they're all still there for your perusal. But you're welcome, anyway!

So me not saying it is proof that I actually did, or meant to, or should have or... could have. My, you do have an active imagination don't you?

[charter.rights]

So me not saying it is proof that I actually did, or meant to, or should have or... could have. My, you do have an active imagination don't you?

Yes he is. They are myth-bound people sucked in by imaginative politics and willing participants in delusion of self-importance and underachievement. Poor white males who can't stand their own skins and still verbally beat down women behind their backs. One day they will wake up but the it m ay be too late.....

[g_bambino]

Can you point out where I have denied "the meaning of the clause" please?

Certainly.

As a proof of your assertion however, that particular clause says nothing.

That's a pretty clear denial of what the clause means in terms of the relationship between the Crown and the people.

So me not saying it is proof that I actually did [ignore the sources]

You not saying anything about the sources and going on with the same opinion that they counter is proof that you ignored them, yes.

[Moonbox]

That is how I predicted it....You can't make a rational argument so you try to take your ball and go away.

You say I can't make a rational argument. Now let's look at a couple definitions:

rational [ˈræʃənəl]

adj

1. using reason or logic in thinking out a problem

2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable

3. of sound mind; sane the patient seemed quite rational

4. endowed with the capacity to reason; capable of logical thought man is a rational being

5. (Mathematics) Maths expressible as a ratio of two integers or polynomials a rational number; a rational function

Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Next:

rea·son (rzn)

n.

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.

2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.

3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.

4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

5. Good judgment; sound sense.

6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.

7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

and finally:

logical [ˈlɒdʒɪkəl]

adj

1. (Philosophy / Logic) relating to, used in, or characteristic of logic

2. (Philosophy / Logic) using, according to, or deduced from the principles of logic a logical conclusion

3. capable of or characterized by clear or valid reasoning

4. reasonable or necessary because of facts, events, etc.

So here we have definitions for the words rational, reason and logical.

You have stated that logic is a delusion. This causes you a problem, because the definition of rational is "in accordance with the principles of logic". Also, the word "reason" is defined as "the capacity for logical, rational and analytical thought -- intelligence".

You've taken the absolutely retarded position that logic is a delusion. As such, by definition, so is reason and rationality. These are very simple and very easily illustrated FACTS.

If you've denounced logic (and by definition reason and rationality) there's very little point in arguing with you. Indeed you're position is unassailable. You've entered the realm of irrationality and in this realm the only reality that counts is in your own little head. By denouncing logic you've by default confirmed that any discussion with you moving forward will be irrational and make no sense.

There's nothing upsetting about this for me. Indeed, I find you hilarious as do a good number of other posters here. I've wasted enough time, however, and I have better things to do.

Once again, may God have mercy on your poor dumb soul.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Moonbox

[Wild Bill]

You've taken the absolutely retarded position that logic is a delusion. As such, by definition, so is reason and rationality. These are very simple and very easily illustrated FACTS.

Aristotle taught us centuries ago that A=A. By this he meant that a fact is a fact. Later another taught us that "The name is NOT the thing!", meaning that an object is what it is, no matter if we try to call it something different.

Basically, this and other axioms tell us that reality IS! We all can or should try to understand it as best we can but we cannot deny it. Just because we are crazy enough to think our toaster talks to us doesn't mean that it does or that it has supernatural wisdom.

When someone denies logic or reason they are denying reality. They instead have a mindset that the universe is run by 'magic' and it will change according to your WANTS!

This is a common delusion. A great number of human beings think this way. Usually they are uneducated primitives but there are a fair number of so-called 'modern' people. The personal advantage of such a delusion is that it also allows you to believe that you are always right and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. We've seen a lot of that from CR! Perhaps this syndrome explains why he appears to feel such kinship with ancient aboriginal beliefs.

Whatever. The Universe doesn't care if CR believes that it rests on the back of a giant turtle! I don't pretend to perfectly understand how the Universe works either but I know I deny far fewer of its Laws than does our CR friend. That means I am more likely to come up with solutions that WORK, since I don't keep trying to bash square pegs into round holes!

[Shwa]

That's a pretty clear denial of what the clause means in terms of the relationship between the Crown and the people.

Artfully done! But a dodge nonetheless:

the same Crown that could be removed by a vote of those same representatives elected by Canadians

.

The word "could" is conditional, much less certain that the words "can" or "will." Thus, there are many things that the constitutional clause "could" allow, you just have to use your imagination to see the range of those things. As a proof of your assertion however, that particular clause says nothing. It's only action is all in your mind.

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province...

So where in this clause does it say that the "...Crown...could be removed...?" This clause says nothing of the sort. Wait, I get it - you are equating the fact that the Constitution may be amended with respect to the "office of the Queen" as "proof" that the "...Crown...could be removed by a vote."

But they are not equal. One is fact, the other is an imaginary condition. Posting links with Constitutional experts who supply their expert opinion or interpretation only supports the fact that your assertion is all in your imagination. If you want proof, supply the test results.

What else can you imagine the Constitution can do? Could it permit that we shall worship the Leader and all have to become Movementarians because the people will it through a vote? Well sure, because this is no less of an imaginary use of the clause. I mean, check out 41(e). With the right kind of support from "the people," a heck of a lot of fun could be had!

Here this might help you:

na-na na-na na-na na-na Leeea-der! (sung to the theme song from the 1960's TV Series Batman) Sing this to yourself a few times and all your Constitutional dreams will come true. But probably not.

Which is all moot of course because an idealogue with an active imagination is rarely a match for the actual.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Shwa

[g_bambino]

So where in this clause does it say that the "...Crown...could be removed...?"

This is what you're reduced to: pedantic questioning about where exact strings of words are, as though it mattered. It's a pitiable attempt to deflect away from what you don't want to face.

The clause speaks about the process by which amendments to the constitution that affect the Crown and its offices may take place. It's no more specific than "an [emphasis mine] amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to... the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province," which means the clause applies to any amendment to the constitution that touches on the Crown. Removal of the Crown would be "an" amendment to the constitution that touches on the Crown. As constitutional amendments affecting the Crown, including those that abolish it, can be made by vote of the elected representatives of Canadians, the Crown is ergo not beyond the control of the people.

It's an old concept called supremacy of parliament; been around since Charles I lost his head. You should read about it sometime.

[punct]

Edited July 16, 2010 by g_bambino

[Machjo]

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2657004postbox

This has huge implications for the government. The Crown has honoured a treaty made in 1710 that defines that Six Nations are "friends" of the Crown, and not subjects. This is a historic event.

Law schmaw; justice schmustice; signing contracts in good faith is highly overrated nowadays. What do you think we are? Principled?

[Bryan]

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2657004postbox

This has huge implications for the government. The Crown has honoured a treaty made in 1710 that defines that Six Nations are "friends" of the Crown, and not subjects. This is a historic event.

A ceremonial Head of State honouring a treaty signed before Canada even existed as a country. Great for a photo-op, I guess. To extrapolate that it actually means anything tangible seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

[Smallc]

A ceremonial Head of State honouring a treaty signed before Canada even existed as a country. Great for a photo-op, I guess. To extrapolate that it actually means anything tangible seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

It may seem like it to you (even if it doesn't mean what CR thinks it does), but it isn't a stretch at all. The Crown is not just the Queen (she is simply the embodiment), and there are many documents signed before Confederation that still have meaning.

[charter.rights]

It may seem like it to you (even if it doesn't mean what CR thinks it does), but it isn't a stretch at all. The Crown is not just the Queen (she is simply the embodiment), and there are many documents signed before Confederation that still have meaning.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is protected under the Charter......

In fact treaty law before confederation is pretty much binding on Canada since it provides for the settlement of colonies, only with the permission of First Nations. If we were to void a pre-confederation treaty we would be voiding ourselves as a nation.

[Smallc]

Sure it does....it also says that the land is under the jurisdiction of the Crown...but don't let that stop you.

[charter.rights]

Sure it does....it also says that the land is under the jurisdiction of the Crown...but don't let that stop you.

NO it doesn't.

It says :

"...to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians..."

To reserve under the power of Sovereignty,

To reserve under our protection,

To reserve under our Dominion,

This was set out in accordance with the Silver Covenant Chain, not to steal land from the Sovereign Six Nation Territory, but to use the power of the Crown to prohibit, restrict and remove settlers and squatters from the land. As mentioned in a a number of previous treaties, Six Nations had been complain about encroachment, and the British set aside "Indian Lands" so that no encroachment would take place.

[Smallc]

under our sovereignty

[charter.rights]

under our sovereignty

Nope. Protection and the use of the Crown's sovereignty to prevent its subjects by law from interfering with, purchasing or settling on Indian lands.

This is supported by a long list of treaties both before and after the RP1763 which attempt to do the same thing and reinforce the RP1763.

The British recognized Six Nations and other tribes of Indians as being independent and separate nations. Certainly if they believed otherwise there would be no need to require a surrender. Nations do not make treaties with itself.

[Smallc]

The British recognized Six Nations and other tribes of Indians as being independent and separate nations. Certainly if they believed otherwise there would be no need to require a surrender. Nations do not make treaties with itself.

Right....you just keep it up.

[Bonam]

Nope. Protection and the use of the Crown's sovereignty to prevent its subjects by law from interfering with, purchasing or settling on Indian lands.

This is supported by a long list of treaties both before and after the RP1763 which attempt to do the same thing and reinforce the RP1763.

The British recognized Six Nations and other tribes of Indians as being independent and separate nations. Certainly if they believed otherwise there would be no need to require a surrender. Nations do not make treaties with itself.

You twist the words of the treaties you yourself try to use to prop up your absurd claims. There's only one way to read "under our sovereignty". But then again, what else can we expect from the person who says that "logic is a delusion"?

[charter.rights]

You twist the words of the treaties you yourself try to use to prop up your absurd claims. There's only one way to read "under our sovereignty". But then again, what else can we expect from the person who says that "logic is a delusion"?

So perhaps you being a scholar and all you could answer the conundrum provided by the Royal Proclamation 1763.

If the natives were taken over by some declaration of the foreign King, why would that same King prescribe into law that no one could use the land unless it had first been surrendered to the The Crown?

And why would the Supreme Court of Canada provide that no surrender could be recognized unless it was done according to a prescribed process, reinforced in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada?

You see the answer is contained in the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty, which provided for a recognition that two nations were each in their own boat traveling in the same direction and never crossing paths and bound like a chain with many links and with strength.

Maybe you are smarter than me....but I suspect you are just being sophomoric in your rebuttal.

[charter.rights]

Right....you just keep it up.

Of course a lame response to a very pertinent point. You don't have any proof so you spew a silly challenge.

[Smallc]

Of course a lame response to a very pertinent point. You don't have any proof so you spew a silly challenge.

I think that you're beyond any kind of proof being worth the effort.

[Jack Weber]

Of course a lame response to a very pertinent point. You don't have any proof so you spew a silly challenge.

You've been going on with this for days,unwilling to admit anything that easily contradicts your point of view...

And you're calling his response lame...

[charter.rights]

I think that you're beyond any kind of proof being worth the effort.

You have never provided any proof otherwise son I guess you are suggesting you are not worth your own effort.

[charter.rights]

You've been going on with this for days,unwilling to admit anything that easily contradicts your point of view...

And you're calling his response lame...

Hey dude. Produce the proof, not the conjecture. Give me references to refute my references and I will gladly be all over them. I have studied this for about 20 years and have consulted with many other scholars on the interpretations and content.

The government would have you believe all the myths they are telling you. But the facts say otherwise.

But then again...maybe you are like Smallc and are too lazy to look it up.

Edited July 18, 2010 by charter.rights