The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Smallc]

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

I have, many times in the past (if not in this thread, which is simply a repeat of any thread that you take part in having to do with first nations people, in other threads). Others have, many times in this thread. It's a fruitless endeavour.

[charter.rights]

I have, many times in the past (if not in this thread, which is simply a repeat of any thread that you take part in having to do with first nations people, in other threads). Others have, many times in this thread. It's a fruitless endeavour.

Throwing down links that contain one sentence out of context is not referencing. Your laziness is your enemy and it sinks you everytime.

And it is only fruitless because in the end it does not support your claims.

Edited July 18, 2010 by charter.rights

[Smallc]

Yes, everyone else is wrong, and you're right, that's about the gist of all of your arguments.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, everyone else is wrong, and you're right, that's about the gist of all of your arguments.

Hey!!!

Wait a minute!!!

I know of three (3) others who are aflicted with the same problem....

[charter.rights]

Yes, everyone else is wrong, and you're right, that's about the gist of all of your arguments.

On this subject, pretty much yes. However, I am not arrogant and if someone produces research I will take an honest look at it. However, in my years researching First Nations Constitutional law, there is very little that I have not turned the page on.

But if you were not so lazy, perhaps there would be something interesting you could add instead of your uninformed opinions and sloppy one sentence rebuttals.

[charter.rights]

Hey!!!

Wait a minute!!!

I know of three (3) others who are aflicted with the same problem....

I do too. You, Smallc and Mr. Canada....although Mr. Canada's affliction dips into issues of violent porn, children and fascism.

[Jack Weber]

I do too. You, Smallc and Mr. Canada....although Mr. Canada's affliction dips into issues of violent porn, children and fascism.

When have I ever been a one trick pony and thought everyone else was wrong and I was right?

And by the way....

I was referring to:

1.B-C(Ms.Regina)

2.Ms.Glover

3.Mr.Falange

Edited July 18, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

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.

And what you are reduced to is imprecision, which leads to misunderstanding and error. As IF the meaning of the words in the Constitution "mattered." Why bother with experts when we can defer to g_bambino on the MLW forums.

The only thing I am deflecting is the pile of crap you are trying to fling out as some sort of rational thought.

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.

Again, you are confusing the cake with the recipe. And an imaginary cake at that!

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

This is what you are reduced to: a pedantic string of words that culminates in some back water naval gazing. You should read sometime.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

I have, many times in the past (if not in this thread, which is simply a repeat of any thread that you take part in having to do with first nations people, in other threads). Others have, many times in this thread. It's a fruitless endeavour.

Hey Smallc, just curious: have you ever read 'The Indians of Canada' (1932) by Diamond Jensess? If you have then you are likely familiar with his influence on Indian Affairs policy during the 30`s to late 60`s and how that ultimately lead to Chretien`s White Paper, the response of Citizen`s Plus and then the Calder case.

If you haven`t then, well, I guess you aren`t familiar with all of that other stuff are you? Which would be a bit of a shame I think.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Shwa

[Smallc]

I'm not familiar with everything relating to this. I am very familiar with the Constitution and the Crown, and I learn more about it every day. I know the person that you're currently arguing with above and another person in this thread are even more familiar with the Crown and the Constitution than I am. I know in this particular case that many of the things CR has said have been wrong and have been pretty much proven as such. There isn't really much more to say.

[g_bambino]

The only thing I am deflecting is the pile of crap you are trying to fling out as some sort of rational thought.

Of course, by "pile of crap" you mean "logical argument supported by sourced fact that you can't refute and so resort instead to less-than-schoolyard-quality name-calling and juvenile grandstanding." No doubt your next response to this, if any, will just be more of the same smarmy drivel laden with emoticons to fill in for the lack of intelligent comment.

[g_bambino]

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

The Queen's sovereignty, to be specific:

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

Royal Proclamation of 1763

But this has never seemed to stop CR from believing First Nations have their own sovereignty apart from that which the Queen holds over Canada. He uses, it seems, the parts of the treaties that serve his beliefs and ignores the parts that contradict him.

[Smallc]

What he doesn't understand is that the sovereignty of the reserves exists under the Crown, as does the sovereignty of the provinces and Canada itself.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

Guys, CR thinks logic, rationality and reason are a delusion. Not only is that the single most retarded thing that's EVER been said on this forum, it's also a pretty clear admission of an inability to argue intelligently.

Don't waste your time. It's like arguing with a dumb monkey.

[charter.rights]

What he doesn't understand is that the sovereignty of the reserves exists under the Crown, as does the sovereignty of the provinces and Canada itself.

Not really. The regulation on the reserves comes under the Indian Act, but that does not give Canada sovereignty over the land itself. That is why reserves tend to do their own thing and follow their own laws.

But we are not talking about reserves, because Six Nations territory (and all other Mohawk territories) are not reserves. They are the sovereign territories of Six Nations and so is all the adjoining land in southern Ontario. And back we go again to the Royal Proclamation 1763, because none of the land on which Six Nations tribes reside, have ever been surrendered. Under the Robinson-Huron and the Williams treaty the Mississauga and the Wendat surrendered their rights to some of it, but that does not remove the sovereignty of Six Nations, which was recognized at the Royal Proclamation 1763 and before.

And guess what happened to the Mississauga of the New Credit. These were the guys that receontly won a settlement against the government for taking more land than they were willing to give up. They moved into sovereign Six Nations territory at the Grand and were given their own territory there, by none other than the Six Nations. Cute huh?

[bebe]

What he doesn't understand is that the sovereignty of the reserves exists under the Crown, as does the sovereignty of the provinces and Canada itself.

According to whom?

(The 'Crown'?)

Isn't that only one side of the story?

Does simply planting a flag wipe out any previous land rights?

If so, then I'll plant my flag in your front yard! jk

[Smallc]

Does simply planting a flag wipe out any previous land rights?

No, but it does bring (in this case) the land under the sovereignty of the Crown.

[bebe]

No, but it does bring (in this case) the land under the sovereignty of the Crown.

According to whom?

[Shwa]

Of course, by "pile of crap" you mean "logical argument supported by sourced fact that you can't refute and so resort instead to less-than-schoolyard-quality name-calling and juvenile grandstanding." No doubt your next response to this, if any, will just be more of the same smarmy drivel laden with emoticons to fill in for the lack of intelligent comment.

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.

Naw, you successfully refuted yourself and then skulked into a corner with your imaginary cake. I saw it coming too, you are so predictable.

[charter.rights]

Naw, you successfully refuted yourself and then skulked into a corner with your imaginary cake. I saw it coming too, you are so predictable.

"...you mean "logical argument supported by sourced fact"

Now there is that word again. Logic(al). It truly is nothing more than a delusional argument at best. His fact is trimmed like a fine 70's shag. I wouldn't waste much time with that one. He is so deluded that he'll start yelling at you because you don't fall for his bull.

"...you mean "logical argument supported by sourced fact"

There I fixed it for him. He had a small significant spelling error.

Edited July 18, 2010 by charter.rights

[yarg]

feget it

Edited July 18, 2010 by yarg

[Bryan]

none of the land on which Six Nations tribes reside, have ever been surrendered.

How is it that all those other people were able to settle there then?

Edited July 18, 2010 by Bryan

[bebe]

clearly treaties signed 300 years ago are not viable under today's circumstances,

So you are suggesting we not recognize the "treaties signed 300 years ago" that established the boundaries of Canada?

The present border originated with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the war between Great Britain and the separating colonies which would form the United States. The Jay Treaty of 1794 created the International Boundary Commission, which was charged with surveying and mapping the boundary. Westward expansion of both British North America and the United States saw the boundary extended west along the 49th parallel from the Northwest Angle at Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains under the Convention of 1818.

We can't have it both ways.

[yarg]

So you are suggesting we not recognize the "treaties signed 300 years ago" that established the boundaries of Canada?

The present border originated with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the war between Great Britain and the separating colonies which would form the United States. The Jay Treaty of 1794 created the International Boundary Commission, which was charged with surveying and mapping the boundary. Westward expansion of both British North America and the United States saw the boundary extended west along the 49th parallel from the Northwest Angle at Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains under the Convention of 1818.

We can't have it both ways.

Forget it, it's beyond you.

[Bryan]

So you are suggesting we not recognize the "treaties signed 300 years ago" that established the boundaries of Canada?

The present border originated with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the war between Great Britain and the separating colonies which would form the United States. The Jay Treaty of 1794 created the International Boundary Commission, which was charged with surveying and mapping the boundary. Westward expansion of both British North America and the United States saw the boundary extended west along the 49th parallel from the Northwest Angle at Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains under the Convention of 1818.

We can't have it both ways.

It's not having it both ways. What we presently hold as those borders is what they actually are, regardless of what any past treaty might say. That they might still correspond is coincidence.