constitution

[August1991]

Over to you,Mr.Falange!

In general, I have not joined forums by an OP - I did it be tentatively replying to another post.

Now then Jack, who is the Falangist?

[Jack Weber]

In general, I have not joined forums by an OP - I did it be tentatively replying to another post.

Now then Jack, who is the Falangist?

Mr.Falange is'nt you...

It's the member who currently is advocating for a civil war in this country AND a Francoesque Fascist dictatorship to remove the socialist traitors from this country.He only wants to have this for a little while,though,because (in his mind)Fascism has some good qualities...

Some of his "handywork" is visible in this thread...Expertly responded to by ToadBrother...

Edited July 18, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

Mr.Falange is'nt you...

It's the member who currently is advocating for a civil war in this country AND a Francoesque Fascist dictatorship to remove the socialist traitors from this country.He only wants to have this for a little while,though,because (in his mind)Fascism has some good qualities...

While I would not think it possible, if it is who I think it is, you have just insulted every tried and true falangist everywhere, including phalangists and those ancient Greek military re-enactors who got paid scale to run around in 2004's 'Alexander.'

Be scared j-dub, be scared.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Shwa

[Jack Weber]

While I would not think it possible, if it is who I think it is, you have just insulted every tried and true falangist everywhere, including phalangists and those ancient Greek military re-enactors who got paid scale to run around in 2004's 'Alexander.'

Be scared j-dub, be scared.

I urinate on black shirts and use fasces' for firewood....

[William Ashley]

I want help with this new way we tend to view the constitution. I am over 50 now and since those very Liberal days of Trudeau and the institution of government funded lobby one of the many things I have become totally disillusioned about is the way young people interperate the Canadian constitution. I was raised to believe that our fathers meant for the constitution to be the kind of document that would prevent the mistreatment of a people by their government, in a nut shell a document that would restrict the actions of government. When I ask my own kids and others, even some polititions they have developed a very twisted concept of the constitution as to believe now that the constitution is a document that demands that all people are treated equal under the law. and it is the government's duty to enforce the constitution. I Truely want any and all to comment on this but please, please, please do not comment until you have asked at least 3 young people which definition they believe is true.

My comments:

"The constitution" really is not just one document - it is constitutional documents. As far as the repatriation, charter of rights and freedoms in 1982 - what this did was destroyed mass unity of the British Commonwealth. The movement was to restrict the monarchs capacities since the end of WWII enmasse. It was in part a consolidation of things like the bill of rights, that already existed; albeit in ammendable acts.

The big crunch of the 1982 constitution was a greater emphasis on provincial restrictions - breaking previous constitutions exclusivity of things like language and education, and instead putting them into a Federal document as a bottom line means of the Federal Veto on these areas. This likely out of the seperatist movement, and making more real the rights of the French in Quebec, as well as other provinces. It didn't make Canada - equal - it actually made it unequal on a Federal level, that violated the non interventionist predetermination of the powers of the provinces in federal affairs - that is that they were to be both equal as seperate entities of the crown within the federation - and non intervention policy on points of seperation of powers. In that respect the constitution of 1982 violated previous constitutional restrictions, and altered the barriers that had been tramped on by illegal and overzelous centralized governments, largely stemming from the transformance of government under the King administration, and earlier in part to the alteration of social responsibility to the federal government during the depression. So in the 30's and 40's barriers and constitutionality of federal infringement on provincial powers culminated, in the 50's and 60's post war years with social programs. In the 70's there was a further push towards socialization of the federal institution - culiminating in the new constitution that rewrote some major lines of Federal powers that were previous provincial. Finally in the 80's under Mulrooney there was a reverse trend on socialization and moves to privatization and higher taxes - in the looming recession. The 90's - I can't quite say what happened only that at this point the illegality of the whole thing became the status quo and accepted - although some in Quebec still arn't happy - even with the whole - I slept through the signing issue - with Lucien Buchard.

anyway... to me the constitution is something to give Canadians a sense that they have rights and protections - not the case when ACTUALLY dealing with the cops etc.. - as even the supreme court was in deliberations on whether when someones charter rights are violated if they should be compensated - not what actions should be taken when police violate peoples charter rights, such as firing them automatically or arresting them for rights violations (akin to war crimes for civil rights).

Basically due to the way the courts work you are going to need to pay to have those rights - and sadly legilsation is made all the time that violates them, without mandamus from the courts striking the legislation as unconstitutional (since citizens petitions to the courts isn't recognized - even though traditionally it was legal to petition the courts - now you get thrown out of the court houses if you try.

To me the constitution is important but sadly is not respected by the Canadian judicaturate/legisaltive institution, nor the executive. With this situation - it is powerless because it is not upheld.

Sorry Robert Bourassa not Buchard. It plays better with him.

Edited July 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

My comments:

"The constitution" really is not just one document - it is constitutional documents. As far as the repatriation, charter of rights and freedoms in 1982 - what this did was destroyed mass unity of the British Commonwealth. The movement was to restrict the monarchs capacities since the end of WWII enmasse. It was in part a consolidation of things like the bill of rights, that already existed; albeit in ammendable acts.

What are you talking about? The Sovereign hasn't been able to use His or Her powers in defiance of Parliament for over three hundred years. Most certainly, by the 19th century, with the evolution of the office of Prime Minister and the modern party system, the Prime Minister gained the effective power to name the Cabinet, thus removing probably one of the last direct powers that the Sovereign had enjoyed. The Constitution Act, 1982 does not, in fact, limit the Sovereign's powers in any substantial way.

[William Ashley]

What are you talking about? The Sovereign hasn't been able to use His or Her powers in defiance of Parliament for over three hundred years. Most certainly, by the 19th century, with the evolution of the office of Prime Minister and the modern party system, the Prime Minister gained the effective power to name the Cabinet, thus removing probably one of the last direct powers that the Sovereign had enjoyed. The Constitution Act, 1982 does not, in fact, limit the Sovereign's powers in any substantial way.

"Powers of Defiance" - my comments have nothing to do with defiance. You seem to be trying to alter the issue of the "CONSTITUTION" and turning it into a talk about the Royal Prorogative. Order in Council anyone? My point was that the 1982 constitution violated previous constitutions by altering the division of federal/provincial powers from a de facto to de jure basis, and did so unconstitutionally within the new framework. The Queen DID sign off though that is the whole its good enough for me aspect of law. I don't agree with your statements but I am commenting as a reminder that the post is about the constitution, NOT about the PM or monarch. The post of PM isn't even recognized in the constitution of 1982. (Note the Canada act is Schedule B of the UK act - patriated in Canada and adopted as the constiution act 1982.

They the PM are put as a conference holder and nothing more.

The act itself is totally abused due to "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "

"freedom of conscience and religion;" but not recognition of their religion as a religion due to restrictions on recognitions of religions and lawful ministry - creating a division between allowable practices normative to the judeochristian framework. Creating religious bias institutionaly within Canada.

"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" - although people can be locked away if they say something other people don't like - because they are then deemed insane or mentally faulty. Creating political prisoners due to "mental health" you can have thoughts but if they arn't "healthy" then we can imprison you and drug you without access to justice

"freedom of peaceful assembly" - as long as we ok it.

"freedom of association" - as long as we ok it, eg if we don't like the assosiation then you cant.

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

but you can only vote if you have a house, and government issued id allowing you to vote. and while you may be qualified you can't actually run - until you pay $5000 and get a private professional organization not administered by the government but instead exclusively itself and is a for profit enterprise to ok you to run.

No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members

- unless we make a law that lets us - for the first clauses reason. one must wonder what the above free and democratic society is.

In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

oh there we go. see above. note "real or apprehended"

There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.

Once a year, woooo. That is like $20,000 an hour - what is quorum? What happens if the holidays and prorouges add up to 365 days per year? Does someone get a prize? Can anyone sue for compensation - would the supreme court pay?

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

- it may take you months of imprisonment for this though, and we don't have to let you in, but you can appeal - but all the judges can do is tell the government to let it happen - but the government doesn't need to do it because of "seperation of powers" Oh you need to pay for a passport to be able to leave too, every 5 years, and get people to ok this, and you have to know people who belong to private professional organizations that are totally disconnected from the government or pay a lawyer too.

Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

( to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

note: pursue

The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and

( any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

EXCEPT--- when the provinces make laws that limit or remove the ability to pursue life or take up residence.

THE CHECKLIST OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS TO VIOLATE CONTINUES.

what is this a dart board for corruption and oppression?

Edited July 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

"Powers of Defiance" - my comments have nothing to do with defiance. You seem to be trying to alter the issue of the "CONSTITUTION" and turning it into a talk about the Royal Prorogative. Order in Council anyone? My point was that the 1982 constitution violated previous constitutions by altering the division of federal/provincial powers from a de facto to de jure basis, and did so unconstitutionally within the new framework. The Queen DID sign off though that is the whole its good enough for me aspect of law. I don't agree with your statements but I am commenting as a reminder that the post is about the constitution, NOT about the PM or monarch. The post of PM isn't even recognized in the constitution of 1982.

How was it illegal? The British Parliament and the Queen had the ultimate say on changes to the Constitution, and those changes were made. The only iffy bit was Quebec's refusal in the end, but that's more a political issue than a constitutional one. The Constitution Act, 1982 was the product of negotiations with the Provinces, so your use of "de facto" and "de jure", besides being rather idiotic to use together, don't describe the situation at all.

I've observed frequently from your posts on constitutional matters that you just sort of throw words and concepts around like a three year old flinging oatmeal. It really is a word salad.

[g_bambino]

How was it illegal?

Indeed. I'd love to know how the constitution is unconstitutional.

[William Ashley]

How was it illegal? The British Parliament and the Queen had the ultimate say on changes to the Constitution, and those changes were made. The only iffy bit was Quebec's refusal in the end, but that's more a political issue than a constitutional one. The Constitution Act, 1982 was the product of negotiations with the Provinces, so your use of "de facto" and "de jure", besides being rather idiotic to use together, don't describe the situation at all.

I've observed frequently from your posts on constitutional matters that you just sort of throw words and concepts around like a three year old flinging oatmeal. It really is a word salad.

"The British Parliament and the Queen had the ultimate say on changes to the Constitution"

There is a lot more to it, but the queen did, not british parliament. When british parliament altered citizenship laws in the 70's and 80's especially those that came into effect in 1982, it altered british citizenship laws - and altered Canadian citizenship status within the overall framework.

the whole ultimate say thing is issued as there was a govenor general that bypassed british parliament - and consulted with the Canadian privy council / cabinet. before 1982

The office of GG bybassed the parliament for ascent, and westminster gave capacities.

BNA 1949 could change the constitution relating to its own jurisdiction without appealing to the British Parliament

Whereas the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an Address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:

Be it therefore enacted by the King 's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby amended by the renumbering Class 1 thereof as Class 1A and by inserting therein immediately before that Class the following as Class 1:-

"1. The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada, except as regards matters corming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language or as regards the requirements that there shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada at least once each year, and that the House of Commons shall continue for more than five years from the day of the return of the Writs for choosing the House: provided, however, that a House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection be continued by the Parliament of Canada if such continuance is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the member's of such House."

2. This Act may be cited as the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, and shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949.

This REINFORCES.. the fact if provincial federal infringement - since BNA 1949 was REPEALED by the 1982 act that engrossed upon provincial rights.

- the effect is that provincial rights were abrogated, while ultravires capcity for "non jurisdictional" global constitutional ammendements became possible.

Edited July 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

There is a lot more to it, but the queen did, not british parliament.

Wrong.

When british parliament altered citizenship laws in the 70's and 80's especially those that came into effect in 1982, it altered british citizenship laws - and altered Canadian citizenship status within the overall framework.

Wrong.

the whole ultimate say thing is issued as there was a govenor general that bypassed british parliament - and consulted with the Canadian privy council / cabinet. before 1982

Wrong.

The office of GG bybassed the parliament for ascent, and westminster gave capacities.

Wrong.

BNA 1949 could change the constitution relating to its own jurisdiction without appealing to the British Parliament

Wrong.

This REINFORCES.. the fact if provincial federal infringement - since BNA 1949 was REPEALED by the 1982 act that engrossed upon provincial rights.

Wrong.

- the effect is that provincial rights were abrogated, while ultravires capcity for "non jurisdictional" global constitutional ammendements became possible.

Wrong.

[William Ashley]

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Brilliant non rhetorical rebutal.