PM missing in action

[Signals.Cpl]

My view is that making the PM into a head of state is a distortion of reality and constitutes treasonous rhetoric because it acts as an eclipse of power, and semantically turns the PM into a power able to conduct a bloodless coupe and seize powers and status that isn't rightfully theirs.

The point is the power he has, nobody is suggesting giving the PM any more power, you seem to be the only one who is arguing even though no one else in the thread is arguing the opposite point.

No they can't the political realm isn't the end all of justification.

If the NDP were to get a majority I would expect the next 5 years to be following the NDP agenda and the PM whoever that may be can push his own policies only as far as his/her caucus is willing to go even when it is against the wishes of the constituents.

No he doesn't. He may be an equal but he is an equal. Meaning he is subject to the law like anyone else.

The PM can do a lot as long as his own caucus supports him/her, should they say enough is enough and stop supporting the policies then the PM has little power. You seem to have an agenda to argue and you ignore what anyone says and argue your point without regard to how relevant it is to the points in question.

Heads of state are above the law.

Sure they are in an imaginary world, but in the real world not so much.

Passing him off as a head of state is indirectly supposing that.

Only if you actually believe that Heads of State are above the law.

No they arn't.

Sure they are, if his own MP's do not support the PM, he can do very little. If his MPs have unwavering support he can do a lot, he can do only as much as his MPs are willing to tolerate, no support, he loses the majority and he has to play nice with the other parties to get thing done.

Expressive.

It makes you a tyrant wannabe, someone does not agree with you, and you try to force your will on them through the use of words and phrases you know nothing about.

Calling people insane to limit equality on basis of disability.

As opposed to calling people traitors to shut them up? Read back that rant you gave and tell me it is not saturated with your self-delusions of grandeur because you seem to believe your opinion carries more weight then anyone else. Your opinion does not carry any more weight then anyone else's and thus you have no right to spew insane, idiotic BS and accuse people of disloyalty and treason when you seem to lack the basic understanding of those terms.

There you go making character attacks again in a way that shows disrespect on grounds of disability.

You made a post that made you sound like you were insane, accusing people of outlandish crimes simply for disagreeing with you. You make insane comments or idiotic comments and I will call you out on them.

Its not because its different from my own, its because it is a distrotion of the truth which creates a power inbalance and gives power to people that arn't suppose to have it.

So lets recap, you don't agree with Argus and call him a traitor and you cannot provide any comments to support your accusations because there were none made to support them. He stated how he saw the power of the PM which is apparently not the same way you see it... I guess he is a traitor as you are the all knowing god of politics and anyone who sees things different should bow down to you or be a tratitor for all eternity.

[Smallc]

I complain about their making up laws to suit their own agenda.

Judges can't and don't make laws. You know that.

[cybercoma]

I complain about their making up laws to suit their own agenda. And note that I am not complaining here about how much power a prime minister with a majority has. I am merely stating it as a comparison with an American president.

You say there's no check on the Prime Minister's power, but you complain about the judiciary "making up laws [they don't] to suit their own agenda." Is that not a check on the Prime Minister's power? He makes legislation, then the courts interpret it to suit their own agenda?

[cybercoma]

Argus, you're also ignoring the fact that the PM can't possibly do whatever the hell he wants. He needs MPs to get elected to stay PM. If he makes wildly offensive legislation and tries to ram it through, his MPs can and should turn against him. Especially if it threatens their chances at re-election. Ergo, parliament and the electorate are also checks on the PM's power.

Edited November 24, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Judges can't and don't make laws. You know that.

Who's to stop them?

Edited November 24, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

You say there's no check on the Prime Minister's power, but you complain about the judiciary "making up laws [they don't] to suit their own agenda." Is that not a check on the Prime Minister's power? He makes legislation, then the courts interpret it to suit their own agenda?

Unless he uses the notwithstanding clause, which is perfectly able to do if he has a majority in parliament. I wish they would use that for the legislation governing immigration and refugees.

[Argus]

Argus, you're also ignoring the fact that the PM can't possibly do whatever the hell he wants. He needs MPs to get elected to stay PM. If he makes wildly offensive legislation and tries to ram it through, his MPs can and should turn against him. Especially if it threatens their chances at re-election. Ergo, parliament and the electorate are also checks on the PM's power.

The point is that Obama, whether he wants national health care or not, can't bring it about because of the American system of government (any more than Clinton was able to when he was prez). If we didn't have it, and Harper decided we should have it, well, we'd have it. That's all there is to it. Likewise, if Obama wanted to reign in political donations, which I'm sure he does, he still can't do it. Chretien did it fairly easily, and Harper cut it back even more. The PM has more power to get things done than a president.

Btw, polls consistently show the majority of Americans want national health care and controls on political donations. Unfortunately, too many of the politicians in the US, particularly Republicans, are more responsive to their corporate paymasters than the electorate.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Argus

[punked]

The point is that Obama, whether he wants national health care or not, can't bring it about because of the American system of government (any more than Clinton was able to when he was prez). If we didn't have it, and Harper decided we should have it, well, we'd have it. That's all there is to it. Likewise, if Obama wanted to reign in political donations, which I'm sure he does, he still can't do it. Chretien did it fairly easily, and Harper cut it back even more. The PM has more power to get things done than a president.

Btw, polls consistently show the majority of Americans want national health care and controls on political donations. Unfortunately, too many of the politicians in the US, particularly Republicans, are more responsive to their corporate paymasters than the electorate.

You are ignoring the fact that what you are saying only became true when Harper took the Senate.

[jbg]

And no, Harper never complained about a gang-up.... He did state that they need to fix thier OWN financial Mess!

That IS strong conservative leadership.... LEAD by example!

There was, truth to tell, significant download of responsibilities by that financial genius, Paul Martin. That being said, health care and resources are provincial areas, not Federal. Why should he go to have a tin cup shaken in his face?

[Argus]

You are ignoring the fact that what you are saying only became true when Harper took the Senate.

<shrug> Harper owns both houses. So did Chretien, so did Mulroney, so did Trudeau. It doesn't take very long for a PM in power to be able to stack that house with whomever he wants.

[Shady]

Btw, polls consistently show the majority of Americans want national health care and controls on political donations. Unfortunately, too many of the politicians in the US, particularly Republicans, are more responsive to their corporate paymasters than the electorate.

I'm not sure how you can be so sure what Obama wants. This is the man that vowed to take public funding for his first election campaign, and then when he found out that he could raise more money the usual way, broke his promise. However, John McCain stuck to his word on public financing. Obama's also the candidate that's taken more corporate money than any elected official in the history of the country.

But I guess Obama's still the empty vessal that everyone still projects their hopes on. Btw, America does have national health care. For children, low income people, and everyone over 65.

[Shady]

And several states have health care programs similar to provinces here. Massachussets (thanks to evil Mitt Romney) and Vermont (which has a single payer system) to mention a few.

[login]

The point is the power he has, nobody is suggesting giving the PM any more power, you seem to be the only one who is arguing even though no one else in the thread is arguing the opposite point.

Not at all the issue is you are assigning the PM powers they don't have.

References to the PM's responsibiltiy to make state visits etc.. The PM is not a head of state. They do not make state visits.

If the NDP were to get a majority I would expect the next 5 years to be following the NDP agenda and the PM whoever that may be can push his own policies only as far as his/her caucus is willing to go even when it is against the wishes of the constituents.

That is very unparliamentary of you. Parliament is a place for dialogue not dictatorship.

The PM can do a lot as long as his own caucus supports him/her, should they say enough is enough and stop supporting the policies then the PM has little power. You seem to have an agenda to argue and you ignore what anyone says and argue your point without regard to how relevant it is to the points in question.

Its not about the PM its about the government. You are buffing the PM cult which is Americanism, and it is not good for democracy, thus nondemocratic in mind.

Sure they are in an imaginary world, but in the real world not so much.

Actually the opposite. Heads of state make the law, and execute it. Heads of state have immunity via international law.

Only if you actually believe that Heads of State are above the law.

They are above domestic law. They have a veto on law as executive heads of state. (individuals can succeed from a union however and hold equal power but recognition will likely render them to foreign power if they do not sustain as rule by force comes into play rather than rule of law)

Sure they are, if his own MP's do not support the PM, he can do very little. If his MPs have unwavering support he can do a lot, he can do only as much as his MPs are willing to tolerate, no support, he loses the majority and he has to play nice with the other parties to get thing done.

You don't seem to understand the legislature just makes laws... the PM organizes government which administers the law.. in part, that is why they are "head of government" not head of the legislature. The Queen heads parliament not the PM.

Get your bearings straight.

It makes you a tyrant wannabe, someone does not agree with you, and you try to force your will on them through the use of words and phrases you know nothing about.

You are wrong, that is the problem.

You are passing off corruption as legitimate, it isn't.

As opposed to calling people traitors to shut them up? Read back that rant you gave and tell me it is not saturated with your self-delusions of grandeur because you seem to believe your opinion carries more weight then anyone else. Your opinion does not carry any more weight then anyone else's and thus you have no right to spew insane, idiotic BS and accuse people of disloyalty and treason when you seem to lack the basic understanding of those terms.

No I'm not shutting anyone up, I'm simply correcting the lies and republican bs.

You call it insane when it is simply the facts. Someone is trying to paint someone that which they are not.

Can't refute the truth so you refute the person speaking it.

You made a post that made you sound like you were insane, accusing people of outlandish crimes simply for disagreeing with you. You make insane comments or idiotic comments and I will call you out on them.

Quite contary it wasn't me that brought the criminal lable into it, it was another poster, sorry try again. My comments were an allusion.

You can go back and see clearly somone else called out the criminal aspect, not myself. I do purport the conduct however is very traitorous. I didn't say they committed treason. Learn to read.

So lets recap, you don't agree with Argus and call him a traitor and you cannot provide any comments to support your accusations because there were none made to support them. He stated how he saw the power of the PM which is apparently not the same way you see it... I guess he is a traitor as you are the all knowing god of politics and anyone who sees things different should bow down to you or be a tratitor for all eternity.

Clearly you don't have the intellgence to take my comments in context. Purporting the PM is the head of state is traitorous conduct. So yes if you or he is trying to pass off the PM as a head of state yes you are traitors to the legitimate state of Canada.

As you can see calling someone a traitor and accussing them of committing treason are two different literary ideas.

Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

• (a kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
  
• (b levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
  
• (c assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
  

• Marginal note:Treason
  (2 Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
  
  • (a uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
    
  • (b without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
    
  • (c conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a;
    
  • (d forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
    
  • (e conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
    

  [*] Marginal note:Canadian citizen

  (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1 or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

  • (a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
    
  • (b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
    

  [*] Marginal note:Overt act

  (4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

Do you see the difference.

traitor..

a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

You can see that falsely assigning powers of state to the PM does not meet with the criteria of the Oath of Allegiance

I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second

It does not read...

I, ……………, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the PM.

You are basically condoning upsurping powers to the Office of PM that do not legitmately belong to them, that is not acceptable.

Edited November 26, 2012 by login

[login]

Judges can't and don't make laws. You know that.

Judges make and break law, it is called "case law" as well as "constitutional law"

[login]

The point is that Obama, whether he wants national health care or not, can't bring it about because of the American system of government (any more than Clinton was able to when he was prez). If we didn't have it, and Harper decided we should have it, well, we'd have it. That's all there is to it. Likewise, if Obama wanted to reign in political donations, which I'm sure he does, he still can't do it. Chretien did it fairly easily, and Harper cut it back even more. The PM has more power to get things done than a president.

Btw, polls consistently show the majority of Americans want national health care and controls on political donations. Unfortunately, too many of the politicians in the US, particularly Republicans, are more responsive to their corporate paymasters than the electorate.

This is nonsense. The PM has almost no powers other than nomination. They in effect are a political advisor.

Edited November 26, 2012 by login

[Argus]

And several states have health care programs similar to provinces here. Massachussets (thanks to evil Mitt Romney) and Vermont (which has a single payer system) to mention a few.

And if Mitt had stuck to his guns and insisted that was a good thing for America he'd be president today -- except, of course, that Republicans never would have allowed him to run...

[Argus]

This is nonsense. The PM has almost no powers other than nomination. They in effect are a political advisor.

On your planet, maybe...

[jbg]

As you can see calling someone a traitor and accussing them of committing treason are two different literary ideas.

Do you see the difference.

traitor..

a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country

Login incorrect?

[cybercoma]

Judges make and break law, it is called "case law" as well as "constitutional law"

You have no idea how the legal system works then.

[login]

You have no idea how the legal system works then.

Do educate....

*gets popcorn*

[login]

On your planet, maybe...

As opposed to what wormwood?

[jbg]

As opposed to what wormwood?

Login incorrect?

[g_bambino]

On your planet, maybe...

No, login's technically correct; the prime minister is an advisor; he and the other members of the Cabinet are ministers of the Crown; "minister" is a Latin word meaning "servant".

Login forgets, though, all the constitutional conventions upon which is built the relationship between prime minister and the Crown: there must always be a government (a cabinet, with a head - the prime minister - to advise the Crown); the prime minister is, in essence, loaned the royal prerogative so long as he holds the confidence of the elected chamber of parliament, for a couple of examples. That makes the prime minister a pretty important person, even if he is not, despite the best efforts of the media and the staff of the PMO, the top of the pyramid.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited November 27, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

If we didn't have it, and Harper decided we should have it, well, we'd have it. That's all there is to it.

No. The constitution puts health care squarely in the provincial jurisdiction.

[g_bambino]

There is virtually no check on a majority parliament. It can do anything it wants. That includes appointing a friendly governor general and appointing friends to the Supreme Court ... or overriding the Charter.

Parliament doesn't appoint the governor general or Supreme Court justices.

The notwithstanding clause of the constitution does allow a law to contravene the Charter for a limited period of time.

If you're suggesting a prime minister who's party has a majority in the House of Commons could recommend the appointment of a puppet governor general who would, in turn, appoint corrupt judges to the Supreme Court and all would allow blatantly unconstituional acts and laws to pass - like the termination of elections, the elimination of paliamentary approval for budgets, the forced appropriation of provincial funds by the federal government, the abolition of the Senate, the unilateral elimination of the Charter, or anything of the kind - then, yes, that would be the point where things have gone "enormously out of line" and the Queen would be obliged to act.

This compels the politicians to follow the law, since the power they wield ultimately is not theirs to use as they please; it is loaned to them and is taken away if they abuse it by disobeying the law. The government therefore remains accountable to the House of Commons; when it loses the confidence of that chamber, it is dismissed and a new one found either from the legislature as constituted or following an election; elections are held at least every four years; Acts of Parliament and exercise of the royal prerogative are also subject to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court and must conform to the constitution, which gives the provinces the power to reject any federal incusions into provincial jurisdiction; etc., etc. So, like I said, there are checks on the prime minister's "power" in our system (though, parliament's influence in that regard has unfortunately been diminished by the way political party leaders have come to be selected).

[ed.: +]

Edited November 27, 2012 by g_bambino