U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-15-2013, 09:45 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,725 times
Reputation: 167

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
In theory, yes. In practice, it wouldn't happen. I won't go into the specifics (which could take a few semester-long law school classes in constitutional law and history to explain), but I will say that if I recall my own such classes correctly, it has been about 300 years since any British monarch has vetoed any legislation properly passed by the Commons and the House of Lords. (Queen Anne, I believe, was the last monarch to do so.) That's 300 years of non-vetoing precedent, and constitutional precedent carries a lot of weight in the Westminster system.

Very generally speaking, what would happen is that if Parliament (where the Commons is elected by the people) passed the amendment legislation, and enough provinces with enough population passed the amendment legislation (again, provincial legislatures are elected by the people), then the Queen, through the G-G, would have no choice but to agree to the amendment. If it's what the people want, as evidenced by their democratically-elected representatives, then that's what she will do for them.

Or, to put it in a way that may make more sense to an American familiar with the preamble to the US Constitution, the Queen does what "we the people" want. She works for us, in other words; not the other way around.

I know that understanding this is difficult for somebody living in a country where the Constitution is one single document, but you'll have to trust me on this: Canada's Constitution is some documents, some unwritten yet unbreakable precedents, and some traditions that come down to us through hundreds of years of British parliamentary history. I've seen the US Constitution in the National Archives in Washington DC; you could not similarly put the Canadian Constitution on display. Because while you could put the paper documents on display (heck, I have a copy of the Constitution documents in my office; they are bound and in book form), you cannot put a tradition or a precedent under glass in a museum. As I said above, constitutional precedent carries a lot of weight in the Westminster system.

And besides, the Queen gets no benefit from being Queen of Canada. We don't pay her anything: we don't pay "tributes," nor do our taxes go to her upkeep. Her expenses and her pay are paid for by the people of the UK, not Canada. Oh, we may spend money on logistics and security when she visits, but we do the same for any visiting head of state. At any rate, if the people of Canada ask her to stop being Queen of Canada, she's out nothing. If anything, she better off--her schedule is freer.

Again though, to fully explain the intricacies of our Constitution and its history is beyond what I'm willing to do here. Still, you asked a question, and I answered it.
Are you sure about that? There's a good possibility the monarchy would interfere. Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian

Quote:
The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.
Outside of that, I do believe you guys could get it done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2013, 10:14 PM
pdw
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
1,473 posts, read 1,965,702 times
Reputation: 857
We are happy with the way things are in Canada. It really doesn't matter whether or not our system is "democratic" in your mind. To the vast majority of people in Canada, it is. You stick with your system in the states, we'll stick with our system here. Does that sound fair?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 10:18 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,725 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
No. I would say that they are so unfamiliar with things that do not conform with the American system that their immediate reaction is to dismiss them as somehow inferior. And some, like our OP, are so outraged that politically-stable, economically-sound, first-world nations (such as Canada) can be all that in spite of having a monarch; that they have to launch an OP to tell us how wrong we are for having a monarch.

I'm going to chalk it up to ignorance. Ignorance of the BNA Act 1867, ignorance of the Treaty of Westminster 1931, ignorance of the Canada Act 1982; and in general, ignorance of the Westminster system as practiced in Commonwealth nations.

I'll grant that most Americans of my acquaintance, both upon meeting in the US and upon meeting in Canada, as well as online, are not nearly as ignorant nor as confrontational on the subject of the monarchy as our OP is. As such, I am left to conclude that our OP is not representative of the American people. He's just a crank, looking to stir things up.
Those are some wild assumptions usually made by those deep in ignorance. And fyi, I'm familiar with the Canadian system, Commonwealth, and constitutional monarchies.

As seen by my orignal post, this is not an America vs Canada discussion, rather a discussion about democracy vs monarchy. It would be nice to stay on topic and focus on the actual points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,149,109 times
Reputation: 3738
It is harder to keep 315 million people happy and safe than 35 million. Having said that, when the country with 35 million is happier and safer than yours - it probably isn't a good idea coming into a forum and passing along judgement about the system lol. Which is pretty much why the Doc is getting universally pummelled in here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
We are happy with the way things are in Canada. It really doesn't matter whether or not our system is "democratic" in your mind. To the vast majority of people in Canada, it is. You stick with your system in the states, we'll stick with our system here. Does that sound fair?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,149,109 times
Reputation: 3738
This is not about the Monarchy of England this is about the Monarchy of Canada.. so where are your examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
Are you sure about that? There's a good possibility the monarchy would interfere. Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 10:56 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,725 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
My beloved monarchy? Here we go again. I don't love the Monarchy or anything about the Monarchy.

The Monarchy was originally established in all ways through violence - the toughest dude in the neighbourhood enforcing his leadership through violence.

What does that have to do with a country having the Monarchy playing a strictly confined role within a governance system.

That role can be symbolical without having any practical function other than to provide tradition OR it can be all encompassing and retain it's absolute discretionary powers.

If all we are doing is maintaining the Monarchy within our traditions to differentiate ourselves from your close proximity crappy example of a Democracy then so be it. Our motivations until changed or proven otherwise shall remain.

The desire to be a democracy must come from it being proven to be a superior system and I put it to you; that given the overwhelming magnitude of proof to the contrary of Democracy being seen to be a dysfunctional, bastardized, greed motivated, facade of the definiton being provided by one country in particular in very close proximity to ours; where will come the impetus to tinker with our working formulae.

Would you expect us to banish the Monarchy from our process merely because you trumpet Democracy GOOD, all others BAD. Where's your fugging proof of that? You have none. The example you choose as your marker IS NOT WORKING!

You keep repeating ad-nauseum, a hypothetical in the hopes people will ignore the facts and willingly jump on your band wagon. Throwing words around like tyrant and barbaric, even alluding to exceptions possible of "slavery" and "rape" when the "through and through" democracy of the century has only just recently roused itself to oppose one while utterly failing to eliminate the other.

Some on here attribute the lofty motivation of debate to your nonsense but I have another description for you whichI'll keep to myself out of respect for the other posters on here.

I will leave it to the readers to decide on the simple alternatives offered.

Accept your premise that the mere existance of a monarchy as it currently applies to our parliamentary system makes us in any way "less" democratic in practice than the way in which democracy IS BEING practiced elsewhere.

OR

The traditional aspect of a Monarchy as it is applied within Canada's parliamentary system provides an additional level of scrutiny which MAY help to prevent the hy-jacking and complete manipulation of a democratic system as practiced elsewhere.
Why do you feel the need to attack the US, even when the topic doesn't involve America? It seems that your nationalistic bias is the reason why you keep trying to make this an America vs Canada discussion. I started this thread because the principles of monarchy go against equality and democracy. And I wanted to encourage you Canadians to support these immigrants, who are on the right side of history, in their righteous fight. Currently, there's a huge monarchy loophole in Canada's democracy, which in theory could be exploited and abused. Why not just close the loophole and be a democracy both in theory and practice?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 11:00 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,725 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
I am speaking of the actual debate within Canada that will have an effect on the issue, not the neutered point making coming from outside the country.
Again, Canadians have been participating in our internal debates from the outside, why should it be any different the other way around?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 11:18 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,725 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
You have no understanding of the system in the least. If you did you could never say such nonsense.

The Crown has NO EXECUTIVE power in the least. To the ignorant, it could seem the Crown does but if you understood the system you would realize that is only appearance and not the reality of the system. The fact the GG seems to have the power to dissolve the government must be understood through Parliamentary RULES. The government actually dissolves it's self by losing the confidence of the House of Commons. The Crown just makes it official and announces the FACT. If there was no Crown then, for example, the speaker of the house could pronounce Parliament dissolved.
Once again, according to your Canadian constitution, the monarch has unchecked executive powers which they have every legal right to use.

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982

Quote:
III. EXECUTIVE POWER
Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Power to Her Majesty to authorize Governor General to appoint Deputies

14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time to appoint any Person or any Persons jointly or severally to be his Deputy or Deputies within any Part or Parts of Canada, and in that Capacity to exercise during the Pleasure of the Governor General such of the Powers, Authorities, and Functions of the Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any Limitations or Directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the Appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the Exercise by the Governor General himself of any Power, Authority, or Function.

Command of Armed Forces to continue to be vested in the Queen

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Seat of Government of Canada

16. Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
Americans have historically misunderstood the system. FDR actually threatened Churchill that he would go over his head, directly to the King if old Winston could not come to an agreement with him. Churchill told him the King had nothing to do with it and could not effect any political changes whatsoever. I still think FDR was teasing him because the President was a very intelligent man to say the least.

The bottom line is that the Crown in Canada has zero political power. It's functions are ceremonial. It is bound by a pretty rigid set of rules and render it reactive in nature not active.
Apparently FDR knew exactly what he was doing since it has been revealed that the monarchy can and has influenced the outcome of bills in the UK.

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,178 posts, read 1,754,947 times
Reputation: 2652
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble View Post
Again, Canadians have been participating in our internal debates from the outside, why should it be any different the other way around?
Maybe because the monarchy is not a debate in Canada.

Oh, there are some people who would like to see it abolished, as your OP points out. Some are citizens, some are PRs, but they want to see it abolished. Fair enough; our system allows them to air their views. Others support the monarchy, and they air their views too.

But there is no debate. Not along the lines of what really constitutes national debate: whether Quebec's language laws are becoming increasingly restrictive, whether Alberta's natural resources are environmentally-dangerous, whether Idle No More has a point, and so on and so on. On a smaller scale, what's consumed us recently have been corruption in the Montreal mayor's office, whether the Toronto mayor was smoking crack, and what to do about the flooding in Alberta. In other words, we've got plenty f other, more important, things to debate before we can bother with a debate about the monarchy.

Or if you prefer, you (on the outside) are trying to participate in an internal Canadian debate. The only problem is, there is no such internal Canadian debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,149,109 times
Reputation: 3738
If anything is clear in this thread it is this statement!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post

Or if you prefer, you (on the outside) are trying to participate in an internal Canadian debate. The only problem is, there is no such internal Canadian debate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top