The British Royalty: How come this never seems to come up in Federal e

[Guest American Woman]

Of course it is; everyone not born in the US is an easily definable group.

As is "everyone without a medical degree" and "everyone without a license." Yet it's not discrimination to exclude those groups when it comes to doctors and bus drivers. I won't repeat myself further.

Once more: this argument is torn asunder by the fact that anyone born in the US but who holds dual citizenship can become the president.

The fact that they are born in the U.S., that the U.S. is their country of birth, assumes a strong loyalty to that country. It's why those not born in the U.S. must have two American parents - that's also assumes a strong loyalty to the parents over the country of birth. But to have it split 50/50, two countries, a parent from each, and birth in the foreign country, it's not unreasonable to assume at best equal loyalty - the very real possibility of a split loyalty. Why would there be assumed loyalty for one over the other? You don't have to agree, but that in and of itself doesn't make it discriminatory. There are reasons - reasons that relate to the duties of the position - while there's absolutely no reason why a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic wouldn't qualify for head of state of a secular nation.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[Dave_ON]

As is "everyone without a medical degree" and "everyone without a license." Yet it's not discrimination to exclude those groups when it comes to doctors and bus drivers. I won't repeat myself further.

Indeed, but I can earn a medical degree and I can also obtain a drivers license and then I do qualify. How can I change where I was born, that is discriminatory, please stop comparing ones place of birth, something distinctly out of their control, with their education/skill level, something distinctly in their control.

[bloodyminded]

The fact that they are born in the U.S., that the U.S. is their country of birth, assumes a strong loyalty to that country. It's why those not born in the U.S. must have two American parents - that's also assumes a strong loyalty to the parents over the country of birth. But to have it split 50/50, two countries, a parent from each, and birth in the foreign country, it's not unreasonable to assume at best equal loyalty - the very real possibility of a split loyalty. Why would there be assumed loyalty for one over the other? You don't have to agree, but that in and of itself doesn't make it discriminatory. There are reasons - reasons that relate to the duties of the position - while there's absolutely no reason why a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic wouldn't qualify for head of state of a secular nation.

It's actually, at least historically, a similar reason: A Catholic is--by doctrine--primarily loyal to the head of another state.

[g_bambino]

I won't repeat myself further.

Thank goodness. I think we've all had enough of that lunacy.

The fact that they are born in the U.S., that the U.S. is their country of birth, assumes a strong loyalty to that country. It's why those not born in the U.S. must have two American parents - that's also assumes a strong loyalty to the parents over the country of birth. But to have it split 50/50, two countries, a parent from each, and birth in the foreign country, it's not unreasonable to assume at best equal loyalty - the very real possibility of a split loyalty.

Dual citizens have a split loyalty. A dual citizen may become President of the United States. Excluding US citizens not born in the United States is thus discrimination without sound reason.

[Guest American Woman]

It's actually, at least historically, a similar reason: A Catholic is--by doctrine--primarily loyal to the head of another state.

I don't see how that applies in today's world, in a secular nation. How is being loyal to the Pope any different from being loyal to the head of the Church of England? How is one a threat to Canada - a secular nation - and the other not? We're not talking loyalty to another country, as in the instance of the loyalty of the POTUS. It's why I feel the monarchy is archaic and discriminatory in a democratic, secular nation. I see it as contradictory to exclude one religion. I see loyalty to a person over the country as archaic. I pledge loyalty to my country, not my head of state.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Thank goodness. I think we've all had enough of that lunacy.

Which begs the question - why do you, too, constantly respond to my posts?

Have a great day. Buh bye.

[Dave_ON]

If you take that definition completely literally, every job that has requirements that must be met would be discrimination. Requiring a doctor to have a medical degree would be discrimination. Requiring a bus driver to have a driver's license would be discrimination. But not taking "the group" so literally, since "the group" in the case of POTUS involves everyone born anywhere in the world other than the US, it's not limited to "one definable group" as is obviously meant in the definition you posted. That would be, say, allowing anyone except those born in the Middle East. That would fit the meaning of a "group" in the definition you cited. Note that it clearly lists "racial" and "religious," however.

Yes I bolded religion quite on purpose. I don't deny that there is religious discrimination, unlike you who still refuses to admit that quite clearly there are two distinct "groups" Those born in the US and those born outside the US. Are you now also disputing the definition of group? Christ is their no end to semantics with you?

The monarchy is, the POTUS is no more discriminatory than any other job that requires valid qualifications for the position. The religion of the head of state has nothing to do with the job in a secular nation while loyalty to the country of the POTUS as Commander in Chief does.

Quite clearly it is discriminatory, unless you think the dictionary definition of discrimination is incorrect. Tell me what makes someone who is born on American soil more loyal then someone who moves their and pledges allegiance to the US? Would you also Argue that Timothy McVeigh a native Son is more deserving to run for POTUS then someone else who became a citizen and has worked the past 50 years as a loyal hard working citizen? Timothy McVeigh is but one example of a naturalized citizen who proved very disloyal to his country, that could have run for POTUS by virtue of where he was born. Obviously he gave up that right, but the fact remains, one can have that right taken away by their actions, why can one who works hard and actually earns on their own merit the privilege to be a citizen not be granted the ability to become POTUS? I thought merit was at the core of being an American, hypocrisy abounds it would seem. How is ones place of birth at all directly related to their loyalty?

Methinks you are the one lacking in that area, as you are incapable of making any distinctions regarding what "a group" refers to. As I said, every job in the world that has any requirements at all, no matter how reasonable for the position, would be discrimination by your take on the definition, as they all exclude a "group of people" who don't meet the valid qualifications.

Indeed the problem you are having is calling a spade a spade. Whether or not you agree with something isn't what defines it as discrimination or not. You agree with the discrimination that is in place for POTUS, that doesn't change the reality that it is, by definition, discrimination. That's just justification to make you feel better and give you a sense of moral superiority. I don't care if it's technically legal, written into the constitution or on a stone tablet atop mount Sinai. It is discrimination all the same.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Dave_ON

[g_bambino]

Which begs the question - why do you, too, constantly respond to my posts?

Because you're still making other irrational claims and arguments.

I note you ignored my point that dual allegiance can stem from more than just birth outside the country.

Have a great day. Buh bye.

I assumed you were a grown woman. Am I wrong?

[Dave_ON]

I don't see how that applies in today's world, in a secular nation. How is being loyal to the Pope any different from being loyal to the head of the Church of England? How is one a threat to Canada - a secular nation - and the other not? We're not talking loyalty to another country, as in the instance of the loyalty of the POTUS. It's why I feel the monarchy is archaic and discriminatory in a democratic, secular nation. I see it as contradictory to exclude one religion. I see loyalty to a person over the country as archaic. I pledge loyalty to my country, not my head of state.

So the Vatican is NOT in fact a sovereign nation? The Pope is NOT the head of state of the Vatican?

The Crown is NOT a symbol of our nation? We pledge Loyalty to the head of the Church of England and NOT the Queen of Canada and the Crown she represents?

I am learning a lot from you, I guess all this time I've been misinformed. Too bad I'm not able to "discriminate" between good information and bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Those born in the US and those born outside the US. Are you now also disputing the definition of group? Christ is their no end to semantics with you?

No...if you are going to argue, then argue about the correct POTUS "discrmination"....a natural born citizen means citizenship at birth regardless of birth location. Senator John McCain was not born in the USA.

Edited May 25, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Remiel]

No...if you are going to argue, then argue about the correct POTUS "discrmination"....a natural born citizen means citizenship at birth regardless of birth location. Senator John McCain was not born in the USA.

I just checked to see where McCain was born, and here is what it said:

John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912). At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are military bases (as well as embassies, among other things) not considered the sovereign territory of their respective country? That would make them distinctly different than any other place that is not in the United States proper.

[Remiel]

The fact that they are born in the U.S.,that the U.S. is their country of birth, assumes a strong loyalty to that country. It's why those not born in the U.S. must have two American parents - that's also assumes a strong loyalty to the parents over the country of birth.

How is this not contradictory to you?

Either you can say that being born in the country ensures the stronger loyalty, or you can say that having parents born in that country ensures the stronger loyalty, but you cannot say both.

[Guest American Woman]

I just checked to see where McCain was born, and here is what it said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are military bases (as well as embassies, among other things) not considered the sovereign territory of their respective country? That would make them distinctly different than any other place that is not in the United States proper.

That's been an argument, but it really doesn't matter, because country of birth is moot as long as both parents are American citizens. The requirement doesn't pertain to just the question of loyalty, but to the fact that both countries could lay claim to the individual and some countries have mandatory military service.

[Remiel]

Looking at the definition, there is one other question I would like to ask; an angle, though probably incorrect, that occurred to me:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Is there not a certain sense of plain English, though not necessarily the conventional constitutional one, that the highlighted sentence would imply that anyone who was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of an amendment to the constitution would, in fact, be eligible? When a constitution is amended, is it not in some sense re-adopted as a whole document?

[g_bambino]

The requirement doesn't pertain to just the question of loyalty, but to the fact that both countries could lay claim to the individual and some countries have mandatory military service.

And yet, there's no barrier against a dual citizen becoming president.

[Dave_ON]

And yet, there's no barrier against a dual citizen becoming president.

Come now bambino, why let the facts get in the way of baseless opinion?

[g_bambino]

Come now bambino, why let the facts get in the way of baseless opinion?

Ignorance is bliss, as they say!

[jbg]

On 5/15/2011 at 11:59 AM, Shwa said:

You said, "Seems to me it's just an archaic left-over from days past."

Well certainly everyone that knows anything about North American history knows that Columbus certainly did not "discover" America at all. You know that right?

So why the pesistance with the false myth that Columbus discovered America? Why is it still taught in your schools? Why do they still have a 'Columbus Day?' One would think that L'anse aux meadows would have changed all that, yet it didn't even make a scratch on that venerable myth. Why is that?

In the same way, Canadians have their national myths - almost untouchable - about the Monarchy, all things British, General Brock, stiff upper lip and so on. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge, say no more. Why should we change all of this, when it serves us perfectly well? Why re-order government to satisfy something that, in the end, is simply esoterica that would get any ruling party tossed from government in a hurry?

When we talk about "costs" of maintaining such myths, well that is wholly immaterial since it serves peace, order and the greater good and all that rot.

I agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[-TSS-]

It has been said that monarchy is a system which does not work in theory but works very well in practice.

[PIK]

Why does it seem the left always wants to ''fix'' things that do not need fixing. We have a great set up, so why ruin it?

[SpankyMcFarland]

If we want a monarchy we should have at least have our own i.e. actual Canadians. Lots of underemployed aristocrats out there would be only too happy to oblige. Liz wasn't too bad but imagine Charles as head of state - ridiculous really. If we have to persist with this carry-on, why not have a de facto president here in the form of an elected GG? That way the monarchists can still bow and scrape and the rest of us can support a meritocratic appointment who does the real work. 

[JamesHackerMP]

If I understand correctly, the whole point (one of the whole points) of parliamentary democracy is that you separate the head of state from the head of government.  If the head of government (PM) is actually appointing the acting head of state (GG) via his "recommendation" to the Queen, that's a no-no in a parliamentary democracy, if the GG holds his job by the consent of the PM.  You might as well have an elected head of state.  In the UK, I wouldn't want to abolish the monarchy.  In Canada, yes.

[Queenmandy85]

The Monarchy costs the UK less than their embassy in Paris. In Canada, we only pay for the GG.

In Canada, we celebrate our French, First Nations, Ukrainian, South Asian cultures. My culture is English. I embrace our blended heritage but I question why is my English heritage singled out for condemnation.

Furthermore, I am sick of the slander directed at the Prince of Wales by people who know nothing about him.  He is a far better candidate to represent Canada than Trudeau, Bernier, or Charlie Angus. 

For the record, he has been a Canadian citizen since 1949, when the Citizenship act was passed and we all became Canadian citizens rather than just British subjects.

To those who would rather have a republic, lets pause to consider some of those democratically elected Presidents:  Putin. Trump, Erdogan,  or Zuma.

Let's look at places that are stable and prosperous democracies: UK, Norway, Sweden Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Australia, and Canada. All constitutional Monarchies.

Yes, there are also stable and prosperous republics: The United States, France Germany and Switzerland, but the failure rate among republics is far higher than Constitutional Monarchies. Our Monarchy has survived and thrived for 1200 years or more. How long will a republic thrive. The USA has only been around for a little over two centuries, France has had several failed republics in that brief time and Germany has only had a republic for less than 70 years.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

If I understand correctly, the whole point (one of the whole points) of parliamentary democracy is that you separate the head of state from the head of government.  If the head of government (PM) is actually appointing the acting head of state (GG) via his "recommendation" to the Queen, that's a no-no in a parliamentary democracy, if the GG holds his job by the consent of the PM.  You might as well have an elected head of state.  In the UK, I wouldn't want to abolish the monarchy.  In Canada, yes.

That's why the GG should be elected. They should not look compromised when making decisions about the PM who appointed them. We need a truly independent 'viceroy'. If people want to keep the monarchy here, fair enough, but real government should be on a firmer footing.

 

[Wilber]

If you are going to elect a GG, what powers are you going to give them and what's the point if they come from the same political party as the PM? A party can only have one leader. I like the idea of a non political head of state, they may be appointed on the recommendation of a Prime Minister but they are quite independent once in office and almost impossible to fire without causing a constitutional crisis..