Federal Conservative Leader

[SkyHigh]

On 1/24/2020 at 3:17 PM, Argus said:

We get visitors from Rabble from time to time,

Rabble?

[Argus]

On 1/26/2020 at 12:58 AM, August1991 said:

We, as individuals, are protected from the power of the State.

But not from the power of judges.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Though i was amused by the projection employed in your adhomenim, as adhomenims are widely regarded as the most "intellectually lazy"

If you don't want me to treat you like a dick, try not posting as if you're a dick. Respect earns respect. Snootiness earns the same.

5 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

You contended that the constitution of 1982 stripped parliament of their supremacy, yet the link you gave me references the 1867 constitution and states " the judicial branch can and must restrict the authority of parliament" seems they've always been able to check parliament. 

For the most part only with regard to whether parliament was introducing on the powers of the provinces.

5 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Also in the link you gave me there was a specific reference to a court case Canada vs Bedford where it is clearly stated " parliament maintains the ability to respond at the legislative level to an unfavorable judicial interpretation, again in direct contradiction to your claim.

Only in some cases, ie, those parts of the charter which can be overridden.

5 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Obviously anyone with even a passing understanding of the law, will freely admit that ratifying the charter into the constitution, did alter the mechanisms employed by each branch of government but did not alter the roles of said branches, but more relevant to the discussion is the section of the aforementioned charter which is the Notwithstanding clause, who's entire point is to protect parliamentary supremacy.

Except it only works on specific parts of the Charter, and not on the rest.

5 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

See that is how an intelligent, reasoned person makes an argument, i didn't need to attack you personally or revert to partisan assumptions,

And yet you did so in your first post.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

But not from the power of judges.

They're certainly not a Star Chamber. You're almost verging into the sort of rationale used to substantiate the existence of a deepstate.

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They're certainly not a Star Chamber. You're almost verging into the sort of rationale used to substantiate the existence of a deepstate.

I'm not positing a conspiracy. I'm simply pointing out that the judges of the supreme court can make any finding they want and no one can really overrule them. They're the product of a system of left-leaning ideologically driven schools run by second and third rate professors who have succeeded in inspiring in them the belief that their job is to change the country to make it more socially just. The problem with that is they don't really understand what is socially just and that no one elected them to do it.

Everyone explicitly accepts that the Republicans are appointing extremely conservative judges to every court so that the constitutional rulings of those courts, including the supreme court, will change to reflect their thinking. Yet somehow people refuse to accept that successive Liberal governments have been doing exactly the same thing here for decades. The only difference is the Republicans admit it while the Liberals piously and dishonestly deny it. But the judges they appoint to the supreme court and federal court are about as 'independent' as the people they appoint to the senate. They're appointed because they reflect left wing ideological views and can be relied on to further the Liberal party's ideological goals.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Argus

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If you don't want me to treat you like a dick, try not posting as if you're a dick. Respect earns respect. Snootiness earns the same.

For the most part only with regard to whether parliament was introducing on the powers of the provinces.

Only in some cases, ie, those parts of the charter which can be overridden.

Except it only works on specific parts of the Charter, and not on the rest.

And yet you did so in your first post.

My first posts were all a simple requests for any actual passages from the 1982 constitution, that supported your assertion that it took away parliamentary supremacy, or how it differed from previous constitutions or any other act that mentioned the judiciary, you have yet to do so, we'll get back to that soon

After refusing to provide evidence i did direct a post specifically to you and the word "outlandish" may have been a little exaggerated and was admittedly intended to elicit a response but was in no way a personal attack. The rest of the post was a factual statement, you are someone who prefers to argue from partisanship, you proved that in your response by calling me lefty and anti conservative, when not only have i not eluded to my politics(or yours) on this issue, but in fact specifically mentioned partisanship on both sides. Thats a dick post? Seems you're just projecting again but the expression " truth hurts" does come to mind.

On a side note I absolutely think we as a society need to be hyper vigilant to ensure that the judiciary branch stay in its assigned lane which is not to rewrite laws but to fil the gaps where necessary.

Now back to the topic at hand like i said before all I want is you to show me where  the 1982 constitution removes parliaments supremacy. You gave me a link that supports my argument, I'll go over it again

The quote from the 1867 constitution, of course it only dealt with the jurisdiction of the two separate levels of sovereign government(parliament and provincial legislatures) that's still  essentially all that the constitution deals with, nothing has changed.

The court case,  "only in some cases"? This is the proof you offered, I have no doubt that if researched i could find many examples of cases dealing with similar issues, again this is the evidence you put forward the burden of proof is on you.

Now what has changed is the ratification of the charter, I put forth the notwithstanding clause, your response not on everything, so lets look at what isn't covered? Language and mobility.

Let's start with Language, if bill 101 arguably one of the most comprehensive language protection laws on the planet, can pass and the only real objection from the courts revolved around the duration of time spent in private English school before an exemption can be granted, seems we're still functioning under parliamentary supremacy. As for mobility, the day the Supreme Court says that people from New Brunswick can no longer travel free throughout Canada I'll be the first one to storm the court, we can grab a beer in the market after.

My hope is you will present a sound and valid argument, but maybe you'd be more comfortable trying to explain how my argument is based on "lefty ideology" and/or "expresses anti conservativism" I'll leave that to you

 

[SkyHigh]

On 1/24/2020 at 3:17 PM, Argus said:

We get visitors from Rabble

Rabble?

[Argus]

19 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

My first posts were all a simple requests for any actual passages from the 1982 constitution, that supported your assertion that it took away parliamentary supremacy, or how it differed from previous constitutions or any other act that mentioned the judiciary, you have yet to do so, we'll get back to that soon

No, I actually did do that, so apparently you didn't bother to read the cite. I really don't understand your continued complaints about this. No serious legal authority disputes that the charter removed parliamentary supremacy. And we can see it in the myriad of court rulings which went against the actual written laws and which were 'read into' the Charter.

19 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

After refusing to provide evidence i did direct a post specifically to you and the word "outlandish" may have been a little exaggerated and was admittedly intended to elicit a response but was in no way a personal attack. The rest of the post was a factual statement, you are someone who prefers to argue from partisanship, you proved that in your response by calling me lefty and anti conservative, when not only have i not eluded to my politics(or yours) on this issue, but in fact specifically mentioned partisanship on both sides. Thats a dick post? Seems you're just projecting again but the expression " truth hurts" does come to mind.

If you don't understand that you're acting like a dick, then and now and in every post, then you're beyond help. You keep acting like a dick and I'll keep responding to you that way.

19 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

On a side note I absolutely think we as a society need to be hyper vigilant to ensure that the judiciary branch stay in its assigned lane which is not to rewrite laws but to fil the gaps where necessary.

And yet they do write laws, constantly.

19 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

The quote from the 1867 constitution, of course it only dealt with the jurisdiction of the two separate levels of sovereign government(parliament and provincial legislatures) that's still  essentially all that the constitution deals with, nothing has changed.

The charter freed judges to act on their own to expand rights even where not covered by the charter. Some of the examples I gave earlier included permitting oral history to be used as evidence in treaty negotiations (Delaamuukw vs BC). That is not something parliament can override because the judges used native rights under section 35. The decision was illogical given all we know about how unreliable hearsay evidence is, let alone hearsay over multiple people over multiple centuries. And it had no basis in law except that the judges chose to 'interpret' S35 into now allowing it and putting it on the same scale as written documents.

[jacee]

Argus,

There never was "parliamentary supremacy".

Government has three branches - Executive, Legislative and Judicial. 

Democracy requires a system of checks and balances that prevent any branch from achieving "supremacy".

You are confusing democracy with fascism.

[Argus]

Just now, jacee said:

Argus,

There never was "parliamentary supremacy".

Government has three branches - Executive, Legislative and Judicial. 

Democracy requires a system of checks and balances that prevent any branch from achieving "supremacy".

You are confusing democracy with fascism.

You confuse everything with fascism. To you any opinion which contradicts you is fascism, despite you having little idea what fascism actually entails.  You're also intruding into a discussion you obviously have been too lazy to follow as I already pointed out that the role of judges in the past was to prevent federal and provincial governments from intruding on one another's territory. As to the "executive branch" it does not exist in this country.

[jacee]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

You confuse everything with fascism. To you any opinion which contradicts you is fascism, despite you having little idea what fascism actually entails.  You're also intruding into a discussion you obviously have been too lazy to follow as I already pointed out that the role of judges in the past was to prevent federal and provincial governments from intruding on one another's territory. As to the "executive branch" it does not exist in this country.

Nonsense.

This useful study guide for immigrants to Canada may help you understand our democracy better:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-system-government.html

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, jacee said:

Nonsense.

This useful study guide for immigrants to Canada may help you understand our democracy better:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-system-government.html

I presume that was written by an American, or at least someone steeped in US culture who is ignorant of ours. That is not how Canada's government works. We do not have a 'legislative branch' nor an 'executive branch'. That is how the US works. The PM is a servant of the HoC. He has no importance or power other than through the HoC, nor do his ministers.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Argus

[jacee]

On 2/6/2020 at 4:04 PM, Argus said:

I presume that was written by an American, or at least someone steeped in US culture who is ignorant of ours. That is not how Canada's government works. We do not have a 'legislative branch' nor an 'executive branch'. That is how the US works. The PM is a servant of the HoC. He has no importance or power other than through the HoC, nor do his ministers.

Nonsense. 

That's a Government of Canada website and document. 

Shouldn't you at least attempt to comprehend your government as well as immigrants are required to? 

I can't believe you don't know this stuff! 

[Queenmandy85]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:04 PM, Argus said:

Delete

If John Baird enters the race, things could get exciting.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Queenmandy85

[Argus]

16 hours ago, jacee said:

Nonsense. 

That's a Government of Canada website and document.

And they're wrong.

[taxme]

On 1/19/2020 at 8:06 AM, Argus said:

It's a bright man who holds the same opinion as me. Clearly Kenneth Whyte is a bright man. He says the Tories should concentrate on getting a good leader, not a bilingual leader. No more Joe Clarks or Andrew Scheers, but someone smart and capable and charismatic. Regardless of their language abilities.

The lesson taken by Progressive Conservatives from Mr. Stanfield’s three successive defeats at the hands of Mr. Trudeau was that bilingualism was a leadership imperative. Anglo Bob managed just nine Quebec seats in three elections. Each of his successors – whether leading the Progressive Conservatives, the Canadian Alliance, or the Conservative Party of Canada – has been functionally bilingual (Reform Party leader Preston Manning was not).

Yet with the exception of a Quebecker, Brian Mulroney, who won 58 and 63 Quebec seats in the 1984 and 1988 elections (more on him in a moment), none of Anglo Bob’s bilingual successors improved much on his record.

Election after election, Conservatives choose bilingual leaders with an eye to cracking the Quebec electorate. Election after election, they fail. In 15 attempts since the end of the Diefenbaker/Pearson era, bilingual non-Quebeckers leading the Conservative, Progressive Conservative, or the Canadian Alliance parties have won 66 seats in Quebec, an average 4.4 a party per outing.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-do-you-need-to-be-bilingual-to-be-pm-pas-du-tout/

Why does the conservative party continue to want to kiss french Quebec's butt is beyond me. Quebec wants nothing to do with Canada although they have been pretty much been allowed and given control over and do run this country called Canada. Conservatives need a politically incorrect leader like Trump and get back to basics and telling we the people that we believe in more freedom, less taxes, and less government. No more bull chit and trying to appear as just wanting to be just another liberal party. The leftist liberal media in Canada hates their conservative guts. Wake up you dummy conservatives. Canada does not need two liberal politically correct political party's. Canada needs a real and true conservative party and the only one out there that can deliver that is Maxine Bernier, a real and true conservative. Needing a bilingual PM is a joke. Canada needs a real leader, and can do quite well without a bilingual one. Besides, Quebec is a french speaking province only. They want nothing to do with the Anglophones and their English language in the rest of Canada. Let's show them that we do not need them also. Take your french language and shove it. Works for me. 

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If John Baird enters the race, things could get exciting.

How so? 

[Queenmandy85]

Baird is some one who can stop MacKay. 

[taxme]

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Baird is some one who can stop MacKay. 

Baird or MacKat will just be two other politically correct liberal fools if one of them gets the leadership job. There is no one in the liberal conservative party today that thinks at all about anything that has to do with real and true conservatism. Why do so many members here think that whoever takes over the liberal conservative party will do anything different than the libranos? The same chit that Emperor Trudeau is pushing for Canada will be pushed by them also. There is no difference between them in politics. The only difference between the two is that the conservatives party do things a little slower but with the same end game in mind. Right now, real and true conservatism has just about all but been eliminated from Canada. My opinion. 

[Queenmandy85]

42 minutes ago, taxme said:

Right now, real and true conservatism has just about all but been eliminated from Canada. My opinion. 

So why would anyone run on a platform of your " real and true conservatism?" It is a recipe for oblivion. It smacks of ideology. It smells like defeat. It is the government's role to do what the voters want. Politicians who tell voters what they should want are arrogant. Politicians who listen to what voters want are winners. 

[taxme]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So why would anyone run on a platform of your " real and true conservatism?" It is a recipe for oblivion. It smacks of ideology. It smells like defeat. It is the government's role to do what the voters want. Politicians who tell voters what they should want are arrogant. Politicians who listen to what voters want are winners. 

Give me a break if you believe that politicians do what we the majority of people want. Politicians do tell the people what they want. Just about all politicians do what a minority of special interests groups want them to do. The majority of voters were never asked if they wanted crap like bilingualism, multiculturalism, foreign aid, massive third world immigration, same sex marriage, and allowing illegal criminal refugees to keep entering this country illegally. Those leftist liberal programs and agendas were all forced on the Canadian people who never asked for them by a small special interest group of anti-Canadian culture haters and kiss ass politicians.

Those mentioned above alone have cost the Canadian taxpayer's over several decades now to have run into the trillions easily of their tax dollars being blown and wasted on those useless and stupid mostly UN commie programs. Don't try and tell me that politicians listen to we the people. They refuse to listen to the majority of we the people whom I believe want more freedom, less taxes, and less government and red tape which they are all still waiting for from their dear liberal and socialist leaders today. Lucky for people like you, real and true conservatism is just about dead in Canada. Give me a break that politicians listen to we the majority people. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So why would anyone run on a platform of your " real and true conservatism?" It is a recipe for oblivion. It smacks of ideology. It smells like defeat. It is the government's role to do what the voters want. Politicians who tell voters what they should want are arrogant. Politicians who listen to what voters want are winners. 

Perhaps. But they're not leaders.

[Queenmandy85]

So, how many votes did the Peoples Party of Canada get? Compared to the votes the CPC and Grits get?

[jacee]

On 2/8/2020 at 3:04 PM, Argus said:

And they're wrong.

You must hate being stuck in Canada. 

Love it or leave it!  

[SkyHigh]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:35 PM, Argus said:

No, I actually did do that, so apparently you didn't bother to read the cite. I really don't understand your continued complaints about this. No serious legal authority disputes that the charter removed parliamentary supremacy. And we can see it in the myriad of court rulings which went against the actual written laws and which were 'read into' the Charter.

If you don't understand that you're acting like a dick, then and now and in every post, then you're beyond help. You keep acting like a dick and I'll keep responding to you that way.

And yet they do write laws, constantly.

The charter freed judges to act on their own to expand rights even where not covered by the charter. Some of the examples I gave earlier included permitting oral history to be used as evidence in treaty negotiations (Delaamuukw vs BC). That is not something parliament can override because the judges used native rights under section 35. The decision was illogical given all we know about how unreliable hearsay evidence is, let alone hearsay over multiple people over multiple centuries. And it had no basis in law except that the judges chose to 'interpret' S35 into now allowing it and putting it on the same scale as written documents.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, son.

You are most certainly no serious legal authority, and have offered no justification for your silly belifs. Your own link supports the opposite, and bringing in a cherry picked court case post hoc when i already coincided that a plethora of cases dealing with the issue is further proof of the intellectual dishonesty to deal in 

For who's the dick, I'll let our fellow interlocutors review both of our posts not only in this thread but our respective catalogues of comments and decided themselves. 

Though im still waiting on any justification to calling me a lefty, if you want to play the poor little conservative victim go right ahead but claiming anti conservative bias on anyone that doesn't agree with your ridiculous ideas immediately just shows how your views are full of petty partisanship and zero want for the truth.

No need to respond, nothing productive can come from an argument with ignorance.