Prince Harry

[cybercoma]

Yes, I realize that - since any attempt to explain why I don't accept the 'it's discriminatory but it works' attitude is greeted with the same old chant, along with lame attempts to equate it to our system, for nine pages with no change.

It's not discriminatory. Nobody can be our Head of State. You keep making this argument as if the Queen of Canada is somehow the same thing as the US President. She's not. It's an entirely different system. Edited September 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

Yes, I realize that - since any attempt to explain why I don't accept the 'it's discriminatory but it works' attitude is greeted with the same old chant, along with lame attempts to equate it to our system, for nine pages with no change.

I understand your system just fine, thank you very much. I don't agree with it, and I don't understand the mindset of 'yes it's discriminatory, but it works, so who cares?' - any more than I accept the attempts to equate it to ours; and even though I've repeated my scenario over and over, none of you will touch on the idea of an amendment to make Bush heirs our head of state for all eternity, and to me that says it all.

Then I guess that's your problem.

[Guest American Woman]

Then I guess that's your problem.

No, it's my opinion. That it apparently bothers you so much is your problem.

[Wilber]

No, it's my opinion. That it apparently bothers you so much is your problem.

Not really, I could give a rat's ass if you decide to make the Bush heirs your head of state for all of eternity. That's your business.

[Guest American Woman]

Not really, I could give a rat's ass if you decide to make the Bush heirs your head of state for all of eternity. That's your business.

The issue isn't whether or not you "care;" it's whether or not you would be critical of it or supportive of it. For the record, I never said I "cared" about your monarchy (though you seem unable to present my position as it is); that is your business - and it's my prerogative to have an opinion about it and state that opinion here, in this forum....

Edited September 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

The issue isn't whether or not you "care;" it's whether or not you would be critical of it or supportive of it. For the record, I never said I "cared" about your monarchy (though you seem unable to present my position as it is); that is your business - and it's my prerogative to have an opinion about it and state that opinion here, in this forum....

For someone who doesn't care you have spent a ton of time criticizing our system of government. I would make one suggestion. If you do make the Bush heirs your heads of state for eternity, for gods sake, separate the positions of head of state and head of government. You know, like we have.

BTW, there is no "eternity" for the monarchy, many different families have provided monarchs over the years.

[Guest American Woman]

For someone who doesn't care you have spent a ton of time criticizing our system of government.

More like I've spent a ton of time stating my opinion in response to the ton of posts others have directed at me.

I would make one suggestion. If you do make the Bush heirs your heads of state for eternity, for gods sake, separate the positions of head of state and head of government. You know, like we have.

That wouldn't make it any better, any less discriminatory. In other words, any more acceptable. Americans would have a hissy fit.

[Wilber]

More like I've spent a ton of time stating my opinion in response to the ton of posts others have directed at me.

That wouldn't make it any better, any less discriminatory. In other words, any more acceptable. Americans would have a hissy fit.

Their ton of posts have been directed at a single unchanging mantra

Your discrimination is your business, ours is our business. I'm saying don't make your head of government a hereditary position.

[Guest American Woman]

Their ton of posts have been directed at a single unchanging mantra

And their/your ton of posts have contained a single unchanging mantra.

Your discrimination is your business, ours is our business.

And my opinion of your discrimination is also my business, and this forum is made available to us to post said opinions.

I'm saying don't make your head of government a hereditary position.

We won't, trust me; and I'm saying IMO you shouldn't either.

Edited September 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

And their/your ton of posts have contained a single unchanging mantra.

Only because you don't read them.

[wyly]

BTW, there is no "eternity" for the monarchy, many different families have provided monarchs over the years.

normandians, plantagenets, tudors, hanovers, now this greek/danish linage...they're all mutts just like the rest of us...

[Wilber]

normandians, plantagenets, tudors, hanovers, now this greek/danish linage...they're all mutts just like the rest of us...

True

[Guest American Woman]

Only because you don't read them.

Now you're just being totally ignorant.

[Smallc]

normandians, plantagenets, tudors, hanovers, now this greek/danish linage...they're all mutts just like the rest of us...

We all know that. That isn't the point.

[GostHacked]

"Arguably" being the key word. Seriously.

But since our government has worked without a Muslim POTUS, I think perhaps we should amend the constitution to prohibit a Muslim from ever becoming POTUS. Sounds reasonable, eh? Why not, even if it doesn't feel right to some people?

There is no way a muslim would get elected to the position of POTUS.

[Guest American Woman]

There is no way a muslim would get elected to the position of POTUS.

That's your opinion, and even if true, it's not prohibited by law. You do see the difference between "not likely to happen" and "prohibited by law," right? You seriously don't think they are the same? But I recall when some said a Black would never get elected POTUS. But he did, which wouldn't have happened if it were prohibited by law. And some believe that a Muslim did get elected POTUS.

Edited September 5, 2012 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

That's your opinion, and even if true, it's not prohibited by law. You do see the difference between "not likely to happen" and "prohibited by law," right? You seriously don't think they are the same? But I recall when some said a Black would never get elected POTUS. But he did, which wouldn't have happened if it were prohibited by law. And some believe that a Muslim did get elected POTUS.

I never made the distinction between your two points of 'prohibited' or 'not likely going to happen'. You seem to come to those conclusions all on your own. But I will say in the current political climate I'll go with 'not likely to happen' ....

But going back to the black thing, blacks were treated like second class citizens until full rights were given to them to match what the white man had. So at that time there would NO possible chance of a black man getting elected to POTUS. Obama got in because the climate had changed. Blacks have full rights.

And with 9/11 always being brought up by people who want to start another war, what do YOU think is the likeliness of a Muslim being elected with the current political climate in the USA?

Also if IF Obama is a Muslim .. then we've all been duped. And that has more implications in the USA than up here in Canukistan.

Edited September 5, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

I never made the distinction between your two points of 'prohibited' or 'not likely going to happen'. You seem to come to those conclusions all on your own. But I will say in the current political climate I'll go with 'not likely to happen' ....

Yet the post you were responding to did; and fyi, in the current political climate, a man who many still believe is a Muslim did get elected. Anyway. I fail to see your point, since the post you were responding to was in reference to the difference between "not likely to happen" and "prohibited by law."

But going back to the black thing, blacks were treated like second class citizens until full rights were given to them to match what the white man had. So at that time there would NO possible chance of a black man getting elected to POTUS. Obama got in because the climate had changed. Blacks have full rights.

And Muslims have full rights. I'm not getting your point.

And with 9/11 always being brought up by people who want to start another war, what do YOU think is the likeliness of a Muslim being elected with the current political climate in the USA?

What difference does it make? What relevance does that have regarding the issue, which is "prohibited by law?"

Also if IF Obama is a Muslim .. then we've all been duped. And that has more implications in the USA than up here in Canukistan.

It doesn't matter that he's not - it only matters that he did get elected in spite of many Americans believing that he is Muslim. If the political climate were as bad in the U.S. as you are making it out to be, that would have never happened. But again. What's your point, since it's not prohibited?

What is your stand on the discrimination, by law, regarding who can be your head of state?

[GostHacked]

Yet the post you were responding to did; and fyi, in the current political climate, a man who many still believe is a Muslim did get elected. Anyway. I fail to see your point, since the post you were responding to was in reference to the difference between "not likely to happen" and "prohibited by law."

Most people can follow the conversation and understand what I am talking about. You are constantly having to explain yourself telling others that they simply don't understand. If you cannot follow conversations, maybe just simply stop posting.

And Muslims have full rights. I'm not getting your point.

There are people out there who don't like Muslims in the USA. You know, because of 9/11 where a few buildings came down? It's more possible now I think to have a Muslim in the position of POTUS, but I still think the chances are quite low due to political climate and how Americans vote along these partisan lines.

What difference does it make? What relevance does that have regarding the issue, which is "prohibited by law?"

I am sure you can understand the difference, at times you seem like a smart gal.

It doesn't matter that he's not - it only matters that he did get elected in spite of many Americans believing that he is Muslim. If the political climate were as bad in the U.S. as you are making it out to be, that would have never happened. But again. What's your point, since it's not prohibited?

Another mountain out of a molehill. He makes the claim he is a christian. If he lied about that, you can sure bet there would be an uproar about it. Goes back to my other point about having integrity. If Ovbama needs to lie about his religion to get elected, then really he was never electable to begin with.

It would be quite the embarrassment for the USA on the world state. DUPES!!!!!

What is your stand on the discrimination, by law, regarding who can be your head of state?

My thinking's are in line with Ron Paul, in that if everyone was indeed treated equally, then there would be no need for discrimination laws.

[Guest American Woman]

Most people can follow the conversation and understand what I am talking about. You are constantly having to explain yourself telling others that they simply don't understand. If you cannot follow conversations, maybe just simply stop posting.

Or stop reading. Which I have just done.

[g_bambino]

Declining voter turnout rates, the dismal state of confidence and trust in politicians, the ongoing concentration of power away from Parliament and into the PMO and it's abuse of democratic fundamentals in our Parliament, should be flashing brightly on our Majesty's radar but...I think she either doesn't have a clue what's happening or she doesn't give a rat's ass. I don't know what else to conclude.

I'd think the explanations you were given would've flashed brightly on your radar, but it seems you either still don't have a clue or couldn't give a rat's ass.

This is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy with no democracy. The Queen can only act within the bounds of the constitution, and those bounds do not allow her or her representatives to write the rules for us (since that would, after all, be too much to their own advantage; that was settled some 300 years ago). It's parliament, including its more powerful chamber elected by us, that makes and maintains the rules. Any "abuse of democratic fundamentals" in parliament is a matter for parliament to sort out; votes of non-confidence are an example of it doing exactly that. (When a prime minister refused to resign after such a vote is when the Crown would be entitled to act; though even in the appointment of a new prime minister, the governor general would have to consult parliamentarians, either without or after an election, depending on the circumstances.) The concentration of more power in the PMO is for us, directly and through parliament, to sort out, though the Crown still stands in the way of the PMO possessing all power.

You're expecting the Crown to do what it should not and then deeming it useless because it will not. Do you have any other tricks to absolve voters of their responsibilities?

[g_bambino]

What would it matter to Canada if there were different people serving as monarch of the different countries if your queen is supposidly solely your queen?

It wouldn't matter to our constitutional and governmental structure in any way whatsoever. It would matter to the international relations we've had with those other countries over the decades, over eighty years in some cases. We have, since the division of the Crown in 1931, always acted collaboratively on matters affecting our shared sovereign (titles, abdications, succession); not because we had to, but because we all chose to. An Ontario Superior Court judge rightly likened the convention that all the Commonwealth Realms shall have the same person as their respective monarch to an international treaty.

Canadians "tolerate" the anti-Catholic provisions of our constitution relating to the monarch likely because the vast majority have no clue they exist; Hell, a frighteningly large number don't even know Canada is a monarchy. If it did become enough of an issue to prompt action, our parliament could alter those laws unilaterally. However, to do so without first approaching the other Realms would go against the aforementioned tradition, convention, whatever you wish to call it. Such applies equally to all the other Realms, where there are also people who wish to see the anti-Catholic clauses removed from their constitutions. If it became a really big deal in one country, and the others were opposed to the change, then it's likely some other arrangement would be reached, whether that be agreement to have one Realm have a different line of succession to the others, that Realm ceased to be a Realm and installed a new royal house, it became a republic; who knows?

[cybercoma]

It wouldn't matter to our constitutional and governmental structure in any way whatsoever. It would matter to the international relations we've had with those other countries over the decades, over eighty years in some cases. We have, since the division of the Crown in 1931, always acted collaboratively on matters affecting our shared sovereign (titles, abdications, succession); not because we had to, but because we all chose to. An Ontario Superior Court judge rightly likened the convention that all the Commonwealth Realms shall have the same person as their respective monarch to an international treaty.

Canadians "tolerate" the anti-Catholic provisions of our constitution relating to the monarch likely because the vast majority have no clue they exist; Hell, a frighteningly large number don't even know Canada is a monarchy. If it did become enough of an issue to prompt action, our parliament could alter those laws unilaterally. However, to do so without first approaching the other Realms would go against the aforementioned tradition, convention, whatever you wish to call it. Such applies equally to all the other Realms, where there are also people who wish to see the anti-Catholic clauses removed from their constitutions. If it became a really big deal in one country, and the others were opposed to the change, then it's likely some other arrangement would be reached, whether that be agreement to have one Realm have a different line of succession to the others, that Realm ceased to be a Realm and installed a new royal house, it became a republic; who knows?

You don't understand her!

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou might want to expand upon this idea and explain in more depth the relationship between the provinces and Ottawa vis-à-vis the Crown.

I was hoping nobody would ask, since it's a bit of a pain in the ass to explain. Essentially, there is one Crown for Canada and Canada is divided into eleven jurisdictions under that one Crown; as the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 states: "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown..." One Crown, one Dominion. However, each jurisdiction within the federation has a government and the Crown is the foundation for all of them, being a part of the executive, legislature, and courts in each. Hence, the Canadian Crown is 'divided'; there's a Crown in Right of Nova Scotia, a Crown in Right of Saskatchewan, a Crown in Right of Canada, etc. We see this when one government takes another or others to court; it will be the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. the Queen in Right of Canada, for example.

It was originally intended that the provincial governments would be subordinate to Ottawa; that's why, to this day, the lieutenant governors are appointed by the Governor General-in-Council, and not by the Queen on the advice of the relevant provincial council (as is the case with the governors of the Australian states). But, almost from the outset of Confederation, the provincial governments balked at that and pushed back. Then, in 1892, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London (then Canada's highest court of appeal) ruled that "the Lieutenant Governor... is as much a representative of Her Majesty, for all purposes of Provincial Government as the Governor General himself is, for all purposes of Dominion Government", which obviously put the provinces on an equal level with Ottawa. That has since become a constitutional convention, upheld since by the Supreme Court.

If the Crown is taken away... Well, where does the national sovereignty it possesses on our collective beahlf shift to? Whereas federal monarchies like Canada and Australia have one sovereign acting through governors in each of the eleven jurisdictions of the federation, federated republics have no analagous overreaching figure, leaving just a president in the federal jurisdiction and governors in the state/provincial jurisdictions. Sovereignty thus always (as far as I can tell) ends up with the federal president, which is to say the federal government. All federated republics are therefore more centralised than either Canada or Australia, the divisions other than the federal one being truly sub-divisions. That's something to consider when proposing that Canada become a republic.

(Wikipedia has a whole article on the provincial monarchy thing.)

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 6, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Thanks for posting that because I don't think many people quite understand that eliminating the federal crown puts the provinces in an odd position, having their own equal crowns.