Question about the Notwithstandning Clause

[William Ashley]

Nope. 'Fraid not. One of the key principles of our Monarchy, predating most other constitutional conventions, is that we are never without a Monarch. That is what is meant by "The King is dead. Long live the King" and its variants depending upon the gender of either party. Underlying it is the principle that upon the death of the monarch, immediately his or her heir becomes monarch. The situation you put forward simply could not happen. When Elizabeth I dies, Charles will immediately becomes Charles III. The coronation is formality, an impressive one, but unnecessary. Edward VIII was King from the moment George V died up until his abdication, at which point his brother immediately became King.

The same principle applies to the Government as well. We are never without a Prime Minister. Even in defeat, either by vote of no confidence or by election defeat, the incumbent Prime Minister remains in that position until Her Majesty or Her Majesty's Vice-regal representative asks someone else to be PM.

It is a key facet of our constitutional system that there always be continuity, that there never be a moment where we are bereft of a head of state or a head of government.

You are quite wrong in that something called time exists, and decisions are at times not predetermined.

Eg. what if no heir exists?

Eg. what if no deputy pm is declared previously?

You are very much wrong in your interpretation, although heartful, totally out of touch with reality.

Also the Canadian system of apointment of the monarch is not identical to the british system, nor the role completely identical. The Queen of Canada, and the Queen of the United Kingdom are not equal, they are seperate entities at law. This occured during the divison of the realms - this created seperate crowns under seperate powers and jurisdictions.

You are simply wrong in your interpretation as stated.

There are only two exceptions to this in rights of the royal subjects - which at law only exist in rare instances due to assumption of divergent loyalty (citizenships contrary to royal subject status), and the quasi state function of the commonwealth as an international organization rather than an Empire. Although citizenship (thus loyalty) exists within the corporation, the basis of supremecy or powers over subjects is something I have yet to encounter within the membership rights and responsibilities grounds of memebership.

Edited August 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

You are quite wrong in that something called time exists, and decisions are at times not predetermined.

Eg. what if no heir exists?

That would be well-nigh impossible. King Ralph was just a movie. There are hundreds of heirs to Sophia of Hanover, all carefully ranked and tracked as to their potential status. I would assert that even if, by some incredible misfortune, that all the main line potential heirs to the throne were wiped out, a candidate would be known immediately.

Eg. what if no deputy pm is declared previously?

It's irrelevant, the Monarch or the GG in the Monarch's name can ask pretty much anyone to be PM. Come on, William, this is Westminster constitutional law 101 here.

You are very much wrong in your interpretation, although heartful, totally out of touch with reality.

Also the Canadian system of apointment of the monarch is not identical to the british system, nor the role completely identical. The Queen of Canada, and the Queen of the United Kingdom are not equal, they are seperate entities at law. This occured during the divison of the realms - this created seperate crowns under seperate powers and jurisdictions.

In this regard, they are identical. Precisely the same constitutional rules apply to all the Commonwealth Realms. That is the point of the Statute of Westminster, after all. We are all bound together to agree to the same person becoming Monarch. To do otherwise would require a constitutional change severing us from Act of Settlement 1701, and because that effects the status and nature of the Crown, that would require all the provinces to agree; see Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

You are simply wrong in your interpretation as stated.

I'm afraid not. The constitutional rules have been in place for three centuries now, and the Statute of Westminster binds Canada to the other realms as per the succession.

There are only two exceptions to this in rights of the royal subjects - which at law only exist in rare instances due to assumption of divergent loyalty (citizenships contrary to royal subject status), and the quasi state function of the commonwealth as an international organization rather than an Empire. Although citizenship (thus loyalty) exists within the corporation, the basis of supremecy or powers over subjects is something I have yet to encounter within the membership rights and responsibilities grounds of memebership.

You're talking out of your ass, William. You well and truly have no idea what you're talking about.

Edited August 27, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

[W]hat if no heir exists?

There are about 600 people in the line of succession. What situation do you envision where that would produce no heir?

Also the Canadian system of apointment of the monarch is not identical to the british system...

Yes it is.