PIK Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 It isn't matter of whether we disagree or not, it's a matter that her nationality is irrelevant and that both of you seem pretty caught up in her being a Hungarian. If it isn't bigotry, then I don't know what is. Your political correctness is showing. I don't care where she is from, if she expects to be the PM of Canada's wife she should at least applied for it and get it, they have been married sice 99 I think ,as I said before it just proves iggy had no intention to come back to canada until he was offered the PMO. If wanting your leader and his wife to be canadian ,then maybe I am,but when you look at the word I am not ,just in your eyes, because you don't know what the word means. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
g_bambino Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 I don't care where she is from, if she expects to be the PM of Canada's wife she should at least applied for it and get it. Why? Quote
PIK Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Why? Why? LOL What a stupid response that is. So I guess every american is a bigot because only a born american can be president. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
bloodyminded Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Why? LOL What a stupid response that is. So I guess every american is a bigot because only a born american can be president. Ignatieff's wife is running for PM? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
CANADIEN Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Your political correctness is showing. This is not political correctness. This about what is relevant and what is not. And the relevancy of the citizenship status of a would-be PM's spouse ranks between which shoe he puts on first and how many times a day he flosses. That is... it is not relevant one bit. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Why? LOL What a stupid response that is. So I guess every american is a bigot because only a born american can be president. You'll notice, of course, that ther's nothing said in the US Constitution about the president's spouse. As for the prohibition on US citizens who are not born so becoming President, the word bigotry does not crosses my mind one second. The word archaic does, so. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 You'll notice, of course, that ther's nothing said in the US Constitution about the president's spouse. As for the prohibition on US citizens who are not born so becoming President, the word bigotry does not crosses my mind one second. The word archaic does, so. We can debate whether requiring the President to be US-born is archaic are not. The US is not the only country with such a restriction, I think you'll find that that is a common feature of many countries in Latin America, many of which based their constitutions on the United States'. It does make sense, in the respect that the President is a Head of State, Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, so the position is considerably larger in many ways than a Prime Minister's in the Westminster tradition. Quote
PIK Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 You'll notice, of course, that ther's nothing said in the US Constitution about the president's spouse. As for the prohibition on US citizens who are not born so becoming President, the word bigotry does not crosses my mind one second. The word archaic does, so. Has is ever happened? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 You'll notice, of course, that ther's nothing said in the US Constitution about the president's spouse. As for the prohibition on US citizens who are not born so becoming President, the word bigotry does not crosses my mind one second. The word archaic does, so. But less quirkier that banning Catholics from the "throne"! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CANADIEN Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 We can debate whether requiring the President to be US-born is archaic are not. The US is not the only country with such a restriction, I think you'll find that that is a common feature of many countries in Latin America, many of which based their constitutions on the United States'. It does make sense, in the respect that the President is a Head of State, Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, so the position is considerably larger in many ways than a Prime Minister's in the Westminster tradition. Whether or not a person was born a citizen of their country has nothing to do with their commitment to it. If a person is good enough to become a citizen, he/she is good enough to run for the highest position. Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 But less quirkier that banning Catholics from the "throne"! Too-shay! Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
CANADIEN Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Too-shay! Of course, banning Catholics from the throne is an archaic non-sense. we are in 2011. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Of course, banning Catholics from the throne is an archaic non-sense. we are in 2011. Well, the chief problem there is that the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While the other Commonwealth Realms do not have established churches, they are all bound by the Act of Settlement, 1701, which means the prohibition on Catholics gets shared around. There is rumor now surfacing that the British Government is in fact making the initial moves to amending the Act of Settlement, 1701 and other aspects of the succession, and while there's no confirmation, it's said that the governments of the other Realms have been contacted. For England and Scotland it will be a very huge change, as both have established churches with the Sovereign as head, so it could possibly mean either a partial disestablishment or possibly that a Catholic Sovereign would have to give up the governance of the Church of England and the Scottish Kirk. While English church attendance has been on a decline for some time, I can see any kind of disestablishment or disconnection between the Crown and the Church as a big deal in some quarters. Still, the ending of male-line primogeniture, which seems to be the bigger push right now, won't tick too many people off, and it is something, I think, whose time has come. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Well, the chief problem there is that the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While the other Commonwealth Realms do not have established churches, they are all bound by the Act of Settlement, 1701, which means the prohibition on Catholics gets shared around. There is rumor now surfacing that the British Government is in fact making the initial moves to amending the Act of Settlement, 1701 and other aspects of the succession, and while there's no confirmation, it's said that the governments of the other Realms have been contacted. For England and Scotland it will be a very huge change, as both have established churches with the Sovereign as head, so it could possibly mean either a partial disestablishment or possibly that a Catholic Sovereign would have to give up the governance of the Church of England and the Scottish Kirk. While English church attendance has been on a decline for some time, I can see any kind of disestablishment or disconnection between the Crown and the Church as a big deal in some quarters. Still, the ending of male-line primogeniture, which seems to be the bigger push right now, won't tick too many people off, and it is something, I think, whose time has come. Considering that the idea of a state religion is an anachorism in Western democracies... Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Whether or not a person was born a citizen of their country has nothing to do with their commitment to it. If a person is good enough to become a citizen, he/she is good enough to run for the highest position. I think there are points to be made on both sides. If not an absolute ban, I can certainly see having a residency requirement. But the US is its own country, and if the citizens down there feel that ending the prohibition is an important issue, I'm sure it will be done. It raised its head a few years ago when Schwarzenegger became Governor of California and a lot of people who, I think, dreamed of the second coming of Reagan, viewed he's being unable to pursue the presidency with great displeasure, but that seemed to die down. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Considering that the idea of a state religion is an anachorism in Western democracies... Well, I won't argue it, but never the less, removing the prohibition on Catholics sitting on the throne is a tricky thing, if for no other reason than the Church, Crown and Government in the UK are so intermingled. And, as I said, you may find that there are certain quarters in England in particular where any talk of disestablishment is going to cause a ruckus. I can well imagine UKIP having a stroke over the thought of it. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Well, I won't argue it, but never the less, removing the prohibition on Catholics sitting on the throne is a tricky thing, if for no other reason than the Church, Crown and Government in the UK are so intermingled. And, as I said, you may find that there are certain quarters in England in particular where any talk of disestablishment is going to cause a ruckus. I can well imagine UKIP having a stroke over the thought of it. Didn't say it would be easy. Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 I think there are points to be made on both sides. If not an absolute ban, I can certainly see having a residency requirement. But the US is its own country, and if the citizens down there feel that ending the prohibition is an important issue, I'm sure it will be done. I agree. Certain things are simply only the business of Americans, frankly, and I can't see how the rule has any serious ill-effects anyway. Besides, I doubt that, these days, Schwarzeneggar would be first choice, anyway. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
g_bambino Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 Why? LOL What a stupid response that is. So I guess every american is a bigot because only a born american can be president. So, you can't answer the question, which is pretty much what I thought. Quote
g_bambino Posted April 16, 2011 Report Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) There is rumor now surfacing that the British Government is in fact making the initial moves to amending the Act of Settlement, 1701 and other aspects of the succession, and while there's no confirmation, it's said that the governments of the other Realms have been contacted. It's not just a matter of the British government getting consent from the other realm governments; parallel amendments would also have to be made in all the realms, since the Act of Settlement is now a part of their constitutions; it is in Canada, at least. I believe such a change to the Canadian constitution, since it touches on the office of the Queen, would require the full agreement of all the provincial legislatures, per the Constitution Act 1982. But, I've heard argument elsewhere that it wouldn't. The PMO said in January that Harper's not opposed to the idea, but it's not a priority and he wants to wait until there's "further elaboration on the merits or drawbacks of the proposed reforms".[1] [+] Edited April 16, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
cybercoma Posted April 17, 2011 Report Posted April 17, 2011 ...not American. Just like one of Pavlov's dogs. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 17, 2011 Report Posted April 17, 2011 Just like one of Pavlov's dogs. ...also not American. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Sandy MacNab Posted April 17, 2011 Report Posted April 17, 2011 Has anyone pointed out that it's been a few decades since Iggy voted here too? Sorry, I'm new and haven't read all the posts. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 17, 2011 Report Posted April 17, 2011 Has anyone pointed out that it's been a few decades since Iggy voted here too? Sorry, I'm new and haven't read all the posts. It's not uncommon for students (in this case Canadians) to get an education at foreign universities like Oxford or Harvard and take up teaching positions at those universities or others in those countries. You can't really hold it against him for going where he could get a job. There's not a lot of positions for people with PhDs. Part of Ignatieff's use as a leader of the Liberals was that he was as far removed from the Chretien/Martin mess as one could possibly be. That should have worked to his advantage. Now that Chretien and Martin have come out in support of him, they took whatever advantage Ignatieff had and flushed it down the toilet. This will be his last election. 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.