Previous  1 ... 12  13  14  15  16  17  18 ... 22  Next

You have History on your side? How's the British Empire doing these days?



And I'll have to go for the other side. There seems to be little enlightenment emanating from your little bulb to enlighten anything.


Well, I'm not. I believe in small government just as I believe in small class sizes. It has nothing to do with ethnic purity.


Obviously no need. You have enough shortcomings of your own.


Obviously the Quebec Separatist have not been successful. That doesn't mean that a different political aproach, preaching the benefits to all Canadians, would be a failure.


There's insufficient division of powers. The Court only has the not withstanding clause to hem it in. This hasn't really been tested yet, but with an open ended Charter it could and I'd bet will given time. Otherwise, I'd say the flaw is being too big to effectively and efficiently fix regional problems. Canada can't drop the prime rate for Quebec while raising it for Alberta. There are to many differences to be taken into consideration by an overarching political system that ultimately has its own power as its primary concern.


Yes, juvenile at best. If it were in Canada's best economic interest to get swallowed by the US would you advocate that? Freedom and self determination are worth quite a lot. And yes, Quebec would have to learn to balance their own checkbook.



Oh there's a great logical leap. You throw up a straw man and then use an ad hominem? Why even bother?



Yes, but solving the big one would be meaningless? We've decided to let your breast cancer go unchecked because you also have skin cancer? Great.


Who exactly is demonstrating cultural insecurity here?


Separation would certainly encourage Quebec fiscal responsibility. BC does just fine on this.


It's obvious that the Feds can't move on this in a timely fashion. It's yet one more example of personal and regional prosperity being sacrificed on the alter of Nationalism.


Whatever, I'm non interventionist. Arguing against saving the world one bullet at a time isn't going to go far with me... try a neocon, they're big on this sort of thing.


Perhaps the UN should coopt you. Riots, hey these things can't always be consensual. Does this work for sex too? Since when does consent matter for unions if the union is good and right under the lord?


Somewhere, you've lost the fact that this thread is about separation in general and not just the loss of your local Quebecois.


Congratulations, you've offered nothing but page upon page of drivel. I'm bummed that I forgot my computer at home last weekend. Reading page after page of what passes for argument this morning has been truly painful.


Oh please. You talk about economics like it's an agreed upon hard science. How do you get three different economic theories? Ask two Economists. I look forward to you trying your ad hominem crap against me.

   

Would be interesting to ask that if you are against Quebec sovereignty, are you also againt Canadian sovereignty?

   

Well we can sign trade agreements you know? Do you really think we are that incompetent? Also how would we not get in NAFTA? The Americans want our goods and products and if they don't buy them or for a fair enough price plenty of countries elsewhere we could expand into. Canada too I'm sure would like a free market and open trade with the west as well. Mexico not sure why they would care they still would get some beef from our cows. Sure we would have to negotiate to include us and would probably be on different terms but could be even better terms or try to solve some of the disputes we are having.

But why would anyone really care if we are even part of Canada? Chances are we would have an even more open market and not mps stomping on George bush dolls either. Looking from an American perspective they would probably welcome our independence. They work with all countries and a new one would probably be no exception. I mean if they are buying oil from Venezuela who constantly insults them I don’t think they will have much of a problem with Alberta who just wants to work with them as goes for the rest of the west. Also our economy is not going to crumble from leaving if we are paying more in taxes and already get less back logically having all our taxes here would contribute more for ourselves not less. Also a smaller government and smaller everything would reduce the costs enormously. Economic perspective we win. Money is mostly why we would leave we simply get more. Except maybe Manitoba they are the weaker link of this but even then.

That is why you cannot compare us to Quebec or other provinces. It is not the same and we are not in the same position. Most separatists in Quebec know they are going to lose some dollars but will do it anyway willing to take a hit. They are leaving because of their culture and language and being just that different therefore feel Canada is not their land Quebec is. Us on the other hand will probably see more profit from it, which is a driving force to go. That is why you hear “the west wants in” meaning we want to really be part of Canada and have influence in it. But if we are going to just be bogged down every step of the way and take another few decades of debate and talk then we might as well leave and I say would be better off. It is more than likely this country will never change and we still always be fighting therefore we should just stand up and walk out the door. Much like an abused neglected woman (The West) who goes back to her lover (Canada) after being kicked down we have to just say no and go.

   

Clogeroo, who's flag is that?

   

I was bored so thought Id make a flag of Western Canada. It is an ensign and has British Columbia's, Alberta's, Saskatchewan's, and Manitoba's coat of arms in it.

   

USCAdad,

Even though you've lept into the fray with a litany of generalized crap, I'll zero in on the above quote as an example to demonstrate the hideous mess you've made for yourself with your rather knee-jerk responses to things. You wanted to get "tried", so here we go:

1. Why does the Supreme Court need to be "hemmed" in? What specifically has the Court done that requires Parliament to set aside its ruling and substitute its own will in its place?

2. What is wrong with an independent body to monitor and check the government's powers against the Constitution?

3. What is not "open-ended" about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? S.24(1) of the Charter automatically gives the Courts the ability to vitiate unjust laws or impose sufficient remedy to aggrieved parties. S.1 allows the Courts to support limitations of the Charter if such limitations are justifiably reasonable.

4. What would you propose to be an "open-ended" Charter and how would it differ from the currently enacted Charter?

5. How would your proposed "open-ended" Charter "fix" your unspecified insufficient division of powers? I assume that's what you mean, your sentence reads like a brain hemorrhage. Do you propose a change to the remainder of the Constitution Act rather than the Charter?

Anyway, that should be enough to get you started. I trust you're not one of these people that likes to blow hot air but quickly deflates when poked with a challenging pin. Are you?

   

I don't think there's anything the Supreme Court has done to merit the not withstanding clause. The need to have checks on any form of power should be clear enough. Without it in the case of the court you'd have an oligarchy.


There's nothing at all wrong with an independent body keeping tabs. The problem is the Supreme Court is part of the Federal government; it's not independent. You can't actually pull yourself up by your own boot straps.


You're off track. The Canadian Constitution is read as a living tree document. There is nothing that hems it in. It could go anywhere the justices want to take it. The only check to this power is the not withstanding clause.


The answer to the inherent problems with the division of powers is the separation of powers. One deals with checks and balances within the federal construct, the other divides the power between Federal and State/Provincial. The check on overarching federal power is the power of the Province to reject or nullify the Feds mandates. This actually has worked well in Canada giving the Province the final authority to implement the Feds laws.


Back at you.

   

I agree with the checks on anything, but disagree that without the notwithstanding clause you'd have an oligarchy. The Supreme Court cannot propose laws or enact them, merely interpret them in light of the Charter. You go overboard.



The Supreme Court is entirely independent of Parliament, which is the point. Parliament isn't policing its own laws, an independent body is. The notwithstanding clause doesn't allow the Provinces to reject laws from the Federal government that fall within the mandate of the federal government. Otherwise, your point is moot.



This is just silly. You said that the Charter needed to be "open-ended" to fix problems and that it hadn't been tried yet. I asked you to supply a definition of an open-ended Charter to which you respond that it is already open-ended in that the justices can do what they wish with this. Rather than defend your point, you blow your point out of the water. I'll take that as a concession you were blowing hot-air about some sort of need for the Charter to become "open-ended".

If you feel that's unfair, feel free to define what an open-ended Charter is and how it would differ sufficiently from the Charter currently enacted. You know, the question you DODGED.



I asked how changing the Charter to be more "open-ended" would fix the insufficient division of powers. You blatantly failed to answer this. Moreover, the Provinces cannot simply reject Federal laws. That is, Ontario does not have the power to declare that the legal blood alcohol limit within its borders is now .1 rather than the federally mandated .08. Perhaps a closer reading of the Constitution Act regarding the division of powers of authority would benefit you greatly. But, that's beside the point.



Of the five points addressed to you, you answered one, mangled one and blatantly dodged three with more generalized rhetoric. Is this your A-game? I hope not. Come on, pick up the pace!

   

Really, this is “throw down” from you? Should I expect something more than banal rhetoric? Likely not, but I’ll spot you some posts to back up your boasting.

   

Look what the US Supremes have been able to do with the commerce clause then tell me about going overboard. The Canadian Supremes have just had less time to play.


Yes, the Supreme Court does have a lot of independence. Who checks them and with what? Not the provinces but the legislature/executive and the not with standing clause. Point moot? You don't actually get there from here, you'll have to argue it.




OK, once again, you're off track! I wasn't arguing that the Charter isn't open ended enough. I was arguing exactly the opposite, that with time the Courts will overstep their boundaries to the point where the not withstanding clause will have to be used. The only thing that keeps this from happening is relatively sane justices. Long live Bev.


They don't have to reject them, they can just not move on them in a meaningful way. I can certainly take this up with my GF, she's a Constitutional Law Prof. I'm pretty sure I understand this correctly, but I can always double check with what I consider an authority on the subject.

you may want to adjust your count.

   

No.

   

“You have History on your side? How's the British Empire doing these days?”

We were talking about CANADIAN CONFEDERATION. Please try to relate your comments to the proper context. Next.



And you matter why? Besides, didn’t you just write, “Mostly it's a lot of name calling and all separatists are stupid sort of thing.” Hmm…maybe you should practice what you preach? This smells of hypocrisy and you reek of it. Exactly when are you supposed to turn loose this intellectual leviathan? Sounds like empty prattle to me.



I claimed Quebec separatism operated off of ethnic nationalism – evidently you have something to say on the matter, so let’s see it. I don’t care whether you like small government or parade about your trailer in your Jack Sparrow costume, my comment still stands and you’re firing blanks. Methinks you may be in over your head, but you’re the instigator so I’ll keep responding in kind



Brilliant, wit, Voltaire. No seriously, if this and a pirates hat is all you’ve got, then take your comedically challenged ass and go sit in the corner till you can come back with something other than, “I know you are, but what am I?” dreck. Damn.



Tell ya’ what, Papineau, you tell me why it would be a success. I’d love to hear your esteemed opinion on the matter – now don’t dodge as it kinda’ makes you look bad, but I’ll spot you two posts to dig yourself out the hole.



Uh oh…it looks like our little pirate has gone and tried to wade into specifics – what mayhem, forum fans, as he tries to traverse the raging seas of constitutionalism, federalism and asymmetrical policies.

Firstly, explain how there is insufficient division of powers? Be specific. Do you mean constitutionally? You mean you disagree with the Constitutional Act (and the BNA act before it)’s division of powers? Why? Hasn’t historical JCPC decisions rectified any shortcomings?

Secondly, what does Sec. 33 have to do with anything? The Charter clearly looks to constitutional supremacy and Sec 33 limits this temporarily. Sec. 33 has been used (ironically, mostly by Quebec) and it can only temporally halt certain section (Sec. 2 and 7-5) so what is your point? Please demonstrate how this hasn’t been tested? In fact, you may want to peruse Sec. 1 as it addresses your flawed notion of a questionable “open ended” Charter. Sorry, Capt Jack, but a little education goes a long way – take the hint and get some.



Don’t obfuscate the issue by dropping such nonsensical mush. Crap or get off the pot – demonstrate, with objective fact, why political dissolution is the only viable solution to these alleged problems. If not, take your ball and go home because it’s time for the adults to talk.



So, despite your infantile prattle, all you can advocate is that ethnic nationalism trumps economic uncertainty? Brilliant – you sell that to the Quebecois.



Really, an argument to the man? Perhaps. And you haven’t done the same thing here? Please, don’t chastise me for things you can’t abstain from. I’m still waiting for this arrival of the Justice League of Intellect and all you can do is needle. Poor little Jack, and let’s see you demonstrate that I committed a fallacy of extension.



Brilliant, Captain Dunce, just gets off the soapbox where he lectured about argumentative fallacies and follows it up with…yep, you guessed it: an argumentative fallacy! Nice work on the bad analogy, swifty, but all you did was come off as stunted and disingenuous. This is fun, but I’m not sure how you’re making out with your constant nose smashing of my knee. Oh well.



Huh? Demonstrate how I’m the only one here promoting “cultural insecurity”? By the way, that was also another argumentative fallacy. You’re not doing well here, are you matey?



Is there a point in there? I’m sorry, I can’t translate fucktardese.



Move on what? He never clarified his point – so what exactly are you trying to mash out here? And you’re criticizing Nationalism in a thread that based on nationalist separation movements? Genius, Levesque, you’ve just kicked yourself in nads, Space Ranger, and shiver me timbers matey, you just crapped the deck.



Empty minutia.



Oh really, the UN should [coopt[ us? Why? I’d love to see what this has to do with my questioning of a consensus regarding constitutional matters? It seems like your wee intellect just resorts to free association and responds with anything rather than something. Any way you slice it, my point still stands, and your cognitive disabilities are not my concern.



Somewhere, you’ve lost the fact that I was dealing with an ethnic nationalist from Quebec that only wanted to promote total political dissolution because it saved Quebec from tying to push another losing plebiscite. Please keep your comprehension to yourself.



Oh, I don’t doubt it’s painful for an intellectually challenged peon like you. I’ll bet the nosebleeds were pretty intense, eh, matey? In fact, instead of promulgating your ignorance, why don’t you go get a book and immerse yourself in Canadian history and politics, as it’s really not my job to educate the chronically unaware. Next time, pick a fight with someone a little lower on the intellectual level as then; maybe, just maybe, you might matter.

   

Ah…no winner or loser, but you should read up on McRoberts’ “Misconceiving Canada” as it actually argues that Canadian federalism does need a “revamping.”

   

Irrelevant. Tell me how the Canadian Supreme Court could become an oligarchy without the ability to enact or propose legislation. Are you redefining an oligarchy?



Sorry, S.33 of the Charter DOES give the Provinces power to check the Supreme Court. You're flatly wrong.



Bev rules just like Johnny S before her. However, how then is the Charter not open-ended enough? What would you remove from the Charter? I'll spot you a mulligan for reversing your original point of "This hasn't really been tested yet, but with an open ended Charter it could and I'd bet will given time." You've flatly implied the Charter isn't open-ended.



THAT'S ANOTHER DODGE

I've asked how redefining the Charter would address insufficient distribution of powers and this is the second time you have flatly failed to address the point. I'll consider this to be a concession that you were blowing hot air. If you don't want to address challenges made to you, just say so, but don't waste my time with fluff.

[/quote]you may want to adjust your count.[/quote]

Can do. I just added another dodge to your tally. Nice!

   

I'm off for an afternoon outing so I'll have to respond tonight. I think I found someone sufficiently low on the intellectual scale, thanks.

   

Previous  1 ... 12  13  14  15  16  17  18 ... 22  Next