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

[g_bambino]

No, both aren't.

Yes, they are. Barring people who weren't born in the US is discriminatory. Barring people under the age of 35 is discriminatory. And those are just the written rules. The point has already been brought to your attention that there are unwritten socially enforced restrictions on who can occupy the presidential office.

[Dave_ON]

Yes, they are. Barring people who weren't born in the US is discriminatory. Barring people under the age of 35 is discriminatory. And those are just the written rules. The point has already been brought to your attention that there are unwritten socially enforced restrictions on who can occupy the presidential office.

Indeed a point that has been ignored, perhaps AW should actually listen to her names sake song

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed a point that has been ignored, perhaps AW should actually listen to her names sake song

Oh but she has....one need only go back to the abdication crisis of 1936 to understand the impact of an "American Woman".

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, they are. Barring people who weren't born in the US is discriminatory. Barring people under the age of 35 is discriminatory. And those are just the written rules. The point has already been brought to your attention that there are unwritten socially enforced restrictions on who can occupy the presidential office.

I couldn't care less about what your foresee as "unwritten socially enforced restrictions," because your opinion in that regard vs. actual reality, actual discrimination in fact, government approved discrimination, are not the same thing at all. Same with requirements that apply to all, regardless of race, religion, sex, et al. That you can't see it, that you aren't able to comprehend the difference, doesn't change the facts.

According to you, it's discrimination not to let adults have sex with ten year olds. According to you, it's discrimination not to let five year olds drive. According to you, it's discrimination that Canada has never elected a black Prime minister. According to you, its discrimination that a Chinese citizen living in China can't become Prime Minister. According to you, any job requirement is discrimination against those who don't meet the requirements.

Your lack of understanding/comprehension doesn't change the facts. If you really believe the argument you are putting forth, there's no point in wasting my time discussing this with you.

Indeed a point that has been ignored, perhaps AW should actually listen to her names sake song

Hardly ignored, since I've addressed it several times now.

Edited May 18, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

If you really believe the argument you are putting forth, there's no point in wasting my time discussing this with you.

I imagine the conversation should cease until you accept a definition of "discrimination" that isn't of your own US-friendly invention.

[Guest American Woman]

I imagine the conversation should cease until you accept a definition of "discrimination" that isn't of your own US-friendly invention.

And y'all like to say Americans are stupid ........

Continue to bask in your ignorance. I have the feeling it's a lifelong habit that's impossible to break.

[g_bambino]

Indeed a point that has been ignored...

And likely to be from now to evermore. Obviously she adheres very strongly to the "every little boy and girl can be president"* myth.

* Except little boys and girls born in other countries or little boys and girls who believe in any of the heathen religions and/or little boys and girls who don't have the right connections.

[g_bambino]

And y'all like to say Americans are stupid ...

No, just you, dear.

[GostHacked]

Ah, so it's not that she isn't the Queen of the UK reigning over Canada, it's that the Queen of Canada is a Brit. Well, even if she weren't also Canadian, the question would still remain: so what? Are you prejudiced against Brits?

So complaining about the Royals is akin to hating Brits? Royalty has outlived its purpose. It does not provide us any benefit whatsoever.

This is an example of what I mean when I say republicans have to invent things to rant about and then provide us the solution to. When's the last time you saw anyone "bow down" to the Queen?

Obama did it in the litteral sense. He was the last person I am aware of that bowed to the Queen. However, we don't bow down in the litteral sense. We bow down by just recognizing that she is the Queen and we are her subjects. Screw that.

[Smallc]

So complaining about the Royals is akin to hating Brits? Royalty has outlived its purpose. It does not provide us any benefit whatsoever.

Then this should be easy. What benefit is brought by removing it?

[g_bambino]

So complaining about the Royals is akin to hating Brits?

No. Complaining about Elizabeth being British is akin to disliking Brits, though.

Obama did it in the litteral sense.

I thought that was only to the King of Saudi Arabia.

We bow down by just recognizing that she is the Queen and we are her subjects. Screw that.

Are you not subject to the law and authority of the state? Anarchist, are we?

Royalty has outlived its purpose. It does not provide us any benefit whatsoever.

Okay, this will be the fourth time I've put this question to you: If the institution is so useless, why is it just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution?

[GostHacked]

No. Complaining about Elizabeth being British is akin to disliking Brits, though.

So, my friend who came from England, who does not like the Queen either, is he a self hating brit? Is this like a self hating jew? Or calling someone anti-semite because they are critical of Israel?

Tell me, what has the Queen done for you lately?

But let me clear something up ... complaining about QEII does not mean I dislike Brits. I just happen to dislike THAT brit. I know you can see and do understand the difference. You just don't want to because it does not fit your argument.

I thought that was only to the King of Saudi Arabia.

Well, what else have you been wrong about?

Are you not subject to the law and authority of the state? Anarchist, are we?

The goverment is what we make it to be. And if that is not the case, then, well anarchy it is. Because when you have to resort to anarchy, it is because the government no longer wants to listen to the average citizen and will tell YOU what to do and what to think.

Okay, this will be the fourth time I've put this question to you: If the institution is so useless, why is it just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution?

Because people like you don't understand that we do have the ability to write the monarchy out of the constitution. Are we Canadians or just more subjects to the Queen? Also another reason, is that no one has ever tried???? Well, as far as I understand it, there have not been serious challengers proposing taking the monarchy out of Canada.

But that might show you something. Because it is so difficult (as you say) to remove the monarchy from our government, it shows you who really is in charge here.

Edited May 18, 2011 by GostHacked

[g_bambino]

complaining about QEII does not mean I dislike Brits.

You were specific about her being a British royal; not just a royal, a British one. You explain why.

The goverment is what we make it to be.

It is. Doesn't answer my question, though.

Because people like you don't understand that we do have the ability to write the monarchy out of the constitution. Are we Canadians or just more subjects to the Queen?

Canadians are subjects of the Queen. I'm well aware of what it takes to eliminate the monarchy from the constitution. You evaded the question, though. For the fifth time: If the institution is so useless, why is it just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution?

[c/e]

Edited May 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

You were specific about her being a British royal; not just a royal, a British one. You explain why.

What is your game here? What are you really trying to get at here?

Canadians are subjects of the Queen. I'm well aware of what it takes to eliminate the monarchy from the constitution. You evaded the question, though. For the fifth time: If the institution is so useless, why is it just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution?

[c/e]

Why has no one tried? Or has anyone tried? Maybe you can repeat yourself for a 6th time.

I've never tried, so I would not know how difficult it would be. Maybe you can give us some insight?? I doubt it.

[g_bambino]

What is your game here? What are you really trying to get at here?

The reason why you felt it necessary to include the fact that Elizabeth II is British when complaining about having her as our head of state.

I've never tried, so I would not know how difficult it would be.

I've told you it is difficult; just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution. The constitution requires the approval of the majorities in all ten provincial legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate just to alter, let alone remove, the monarchy, not to mention the constitutional conventions required, the treaty negotiations will all First Nations, and possibly a referendum. The question is: do you know why the amendment was made so difficult to achieve?

[Wilber]

No, both aren't. That's the point. Unless you think requiring a doctor's degree for a physician's position is "discriminatory" to all of those who don't have one, including those who never even graduated from high school?

Of course they are. If we discriminate on bloodlines, you discriminate on place of birth. One has nothing more to do with being qualified to do a job than the other.

Some of your greatest citizens have been immigrants.

[GostHacked]

The reason why you felt it necessary to include the fact that Elizabeth II is British when complaining about having her as our head of state.{/quote}

Fact - She IS a Brit

Fact - She IS our head of state.

Again, what is your game here?

I've told you it is difficult; just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution. The constitution requires the approval of the majorities in all ten provincial legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate just to alter, let alone remove, the monarchy, not to mention the constitutional conventions required, the treaty negotiations will all First Nations, and possibly a referendum. The question is: do you know why the amendment was made so difficult to achieve?

Maybe instead of carrying this on for a few posts you could have just told us why.

It just seems like a long process not really a difficult one. Something we should have started decades ago.

[jbg]

Of course they are. If we discriminate on bloodlines, you discriminate on place of birth. One has nothing more to do with being qualified to do a job than the other.

Let's get one thing clear about the "born in the U.S.A." clause to the Constitution; it was a sledgehamer being used to kill an ant. The fear was that Alexander Hamilton, a brilliant eccentric, would latch onto power. At the time, as well, there was a paranoia of the Tories selling out the new country and returning us to British control.

I think it's long past time that provision of the Constitution, that has long outlived its usefulness, be consigned to the same dustbin to which slavery has been relegated.

[g_bambino]

Fact - She IS a Brit

Fact - She IS our head of state.

That doesn't explain why you feel it necessary to include the fact that Elizabeth II is British when complaining about having her as our head of state. It obviously has some significance for you.

Maybe instead of carrying this on for a few posts you could have just told us why.

I didn't tell you why anything. I elaborated on how difficult it would be to amend the constituiton to remove the monarchy. I'm still waiting for you to offer your opinions as to why it is so entrenched.

It just seems like a long process not really a difficult one.

Now you're being disingenuous.

[+]

Edited May 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Of course they are. If we discriminate on bloodlines, you discriminate on place of birth. One has nothing more to do with being qualified to do a job than the other.

I never said you discriminated on the basis of bloodlines, I said you discriminated against Catholics. And it's true.

And again. A requirement that the head of a state be born in that state is not discrimination; if you truly believe that it is, you clearly don't understand the meaning of "discrimination." How does one discriminate against the whole world? The requirement sets no one apart. It doesn't apply to any specific nation. You're really grasping at straws here to avoid seeing the situation for what it is - discrimination based on religion. It's amazing to me what some people will try to justify - and the lengths they will go to in their attempt.

Some of your greatest citizens have been immigrants.

And their descendants could become president; they weren't prevented from it by their bloodline. Unlike your head of state.

[g_bambino]

I think it's long past time that provision of the Constitution, that has long outlived its usefulness, be consigned to the same dustbin to which slavery has been relegated.

I feel somewhat the same about the provisions of the Act of Settlement that bar Catholics from the throne. The Papacy just doesn't have the clout it did in the 17th century.

I think the point was, though, that each country has its limitations on who can be head of state.

[correct]

Edited May 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[jbg]

I think the point was, though, that each country has its limitations on who can be head of state.

In our country's case amending the Constitution to allow at least those naturalized, say, thirty-five years or longer (deliberately exactly the minimum age) should be relatively easy. Until the revelation of Schwartzeneggger's contretemps, many felt he would have made a good President. There are many immigrants just as devoted to the U.S., and who have bettering the country as their sole mission. Those people should be eligible for office.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the point was, though, that each country has its limitations on who can be head of state.

And when that limitation is based on religion, it's discrimination.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I've told you it is difficult; just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution....

Not in this circumstance, where it was quite a simple matter to deal with a throne abdication (Succession to the Throne Act 1937), and completely unnecessary save for reinforcing Canada's independence from Great Britain (see, it is political), as the Statute of Westminster 1931 already applied. So in effect the UK Parliament could determine who Canada's monarch could be, including a Catholic dog catcher!

[g_bambino]

And when that limitation is based on religion, it's discrimination.

As it is when the limitation is on one's place of birth. Perhaps more so, since one can change their religion but can't help where they were born.