Oath of allegiance to Queen stays as requirement to obtain c
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
DrCaleb @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:40 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Just my $.02 here but I've always understood the Queen to be a necessary check on the potential excesses of civil government in much the same way that the 2nd Amendment is a necessary check on the US government.
FWIW, having a constitutional monarch as a circuit breaker to government is far less dramatic than having to throw a civil war to fix some serious problems.
FWIW, having a constitutional monarch as a circuit breaker to government is far less dramatic than having to throw a civil war to fix some serious problems.
That's what no one seems to get with the whole 'Constitutional Monarchy' thing. Parliament ensures the will of the people is done, the Sovereign ensures the will of the law is done.
There has to be that balance, or the system favours one or the other.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:03 pm
herbie herbie:
Not at all. The Queen couldn't "check" Parliament, can't even do that in the UK. It's a misconception in the USA that King George was the evil one, he was just mental. It was Parliament that made the laws that caused the Revolution.
The Monarchy's been reduced to nothing but pomp and circumstance, someone on the coins and the $20 you cheer and wave at and sometimes has to sign a Bill because of the way the Constitution is set up. Is she refused or even commented that 'this is a terrible law' she WOULD be risking Canada, Australia, New Zealand rethinking their positions.
I'm thinking of ways to retain the traditional ties, yet ensure the national and democratic finality of gov't. And with over 200 years of being next to the USA, avoiding some of the problems of a Republic.
It to often seems, even with your built in 'checks and balances' that in response to the fear of a demagogic King, you guys have created a Demagog elected every 4 years. The checks and balances only ensure nothing ever gets done...
The Monarchy's been reduced to nothing but pomp and circumstance, someone on the coins and the $20 you cheer and wave at and sometimes has to sign a Bill because of the way the Constitution is set up. Is she refused or even commented that 'this is a terrible law' she WOULD be risking Canada, Australia, New Zealand rethinking their positions.
I'm thinking of ways to retain the traditional ties, yet ensure the national and democratic finality of gov't. And with over 200 years of being next to the USA, avoiding some of the problems of a Republic.
It to often seems, even with your built in 'checks and balances' that in response to the fear of a demagogic King, you guys have created a Demagog elected every 4 years. The checks and balances only ensure nothing ever gets done...
There are 16 republics within the Commonwealth. They acknowledge their colonial and cultural ties with the UK......however, their populations aren't compromised of a majority or plurality of British descendants, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand are. If the wogs don't like the way we run our country they can stay the hell out, and try and create something similar in their own preserves.
BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:12 pm
herbie herbie:
Not at all. The Queen couldn't "check" Parliament, can't even do that in the UK.
Some years ago I was in the company of a fine British officer and a group of other gentlemen and some of them expressed their republican leanings and took the discussion up to the line of insubordination (IMHO) and the fine British officer responded by reminding them that his oath was to the Queen.
Which to me has been a lasting example of the British system checking a potential excess.
And then I look at Public Domain and worry that the fine British officer has been replaced by some young turd who has no sense of loyalty and for whom his oath was merely a 19th century artifact wholly absent any meaning in a modern society that evidences precious little in the way of honor.
In short, what truly checks the potential excess of Parliament is a graying military that takes orders from the Queen.
Some day soon that may no longer be the case.
BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:16 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Just my $.02 here but I've always understood the Queen to be a necessary check on the potential excesses of civil government in much the same way that the 2nd Amendment is a necessary check on the US government.
FWIW, having a constitutional monarch as a circuit breaker to government is far less dramatic than having to throw a civil war to fix some serious problems.
FWIW, having a constitutional monarch as a circuit breaker to government is far less dramatic than having to throw a civil war to fix some serious problems.
That's what no one seems to get with the whole 'Constitutional Monarchy' thing. Parliament ensures the will of the people is done, the Sovereign ensures the will of the law is done.
There has to be that balance, or the system favours one or the other.
What he said! +5
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:22 pm
$1:
n short, what truly checks the potential excess of Parliament is a graying military that takes orders from the Queen.
The Queen doesn't issue orders to the military really. The military takes their orders from the MoND and the PM. While the GG is our head of State through the Queen, they dare not say or do anything contrary to the wishes of the parliament lest they be told to take a flying f*ck. it's been done before.
BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:27 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
$1:
n short, what truly checks the potential excess of Parliament is a graying military that takes orders from the Queen.
The Queen doesn't issue orders to the military really. The military takes their orders from the MoND and the PM. While the GG is our head of State through the Queen, they dare not say or do anything contrary to the wishes of the parliament lest they be told to take a flying f*ck. it's been done before.
Absent functioning checks and balances you just shoot the bastards because that's your remaining choice unless you're willing to submit.
Canadian_Mind @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:33 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
$1:
n short, what truly checks the potential excess of Parliament is a graying military that takes orders from the Queen.
The Queen doesn't issue orders to the military really. The military takes their orders from the MoND and the PM. While the GG is our head of State through the Queen, they dare not say or do anything contrary to the wishes of the parliament lest they be told to take a flying f*ck. it's been done before.
80 years ago as I recall.
That said, while the military takes orders from the PM and MoND, those orders are given by these individuals on behalf of the crown/GG/Queen. If the Queen or GG give orders contrary to what the PM or MoND orders, those are what should be followed. Whether they are or not comes down to the person receiving said orders and they decide what is in the best interests. Ultimately the military is responsible for what is in the best interests of Canada.
For example, if the PM orders that the native populations be exterminated (order I hope the army wouldn't follow), the GG or the monarch is supposed to be able to step in and say no. If this happens, I'd expect the General officer to comply with the orders from the GG/Queen.
The other example, suppose the Russians are bombing our cities. The PM orders the military to shoot them down, but the GG for some bizarre reason says no, I'd expect the General officer to comply with the orders from the PM.
In either case, it's up to the General officer receiving the orders to determine what is in Canada's best interest, and follow the appropriate orders to that effect.
BartSimpson @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:35 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
In either case, it's up to the General officer receiving the orders to determine what is in Canada's best interest, and follow the appropriate orders to that effect.
It's up to every person in every military to determine what is right or wrong with their orders and to act accordingly.
"Following orders" has not been an excuse for action or inaction in defense of war crimes for near seventy years now.
As I used to post on here some years back: 'The Holocaust was perfectly legal.'
Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. And just because you're ordered to follow that law doesn't mean you won't get shot for doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMVnd64cJQ
Jabberwalker @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:14 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
In either case, it's up to the General officer receiving the orders to determine what is in Canada's best interest, and follow the appropriate orders to that effect.
It's up to every person in every military to determine what is right or wrong with their orders and to act accordingly.
"Following orders" has not been an excuse for action or inaction in defense of war crimes for near seventy years now.
As I used to post on here some years back: 'The Holocaust was perfectly legal.'
Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. And just because you're ordered to follow that law doesn't mean you won't get shot for doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMVnd64cJQ
Those orders should be lawful and broadly reasonable but beyond that, you shouldn't be weighing each one. That's for the sphagetti hats.
herbie @ Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:59 pm
$1:
If the wogs don't like the way we run our country they can stay the hell out, and try and create something similar in their own preserves.
You calling me a wog ye manky wee bastard? Smell me fist and tremble!
Neither the GG nor the Queen give orders.
Bart-you're trolling. Cuz from what you've posted it appears you think if George Washington didn't like it, he should've packed up and moved.
Jabberwalker @ Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:25 am
The GG does have powers but they are rarely invoked. If you will recall a few years back, Michaele Jean intervened when the Liberals and NDP put together a coalition to oust the minority Tories. It was perfectly legal and legitimate (maybe not so desirable) for them to do so and the GG could easily, legally have had them form a government. She did not and the Crown stuck with the Tories. I'm sure that it wasn't her decision alone or even here's at all but legally, it certainly was.
uwish @ Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:42 am
It is 'traditional' that the GG follows the will of the government, BUT as you point out, it isn't always the case; and the GG does NOT have to. While the duties of the sovereign and the GG are generally now 'considered' ceremonial, legally they do have the power.
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:58 am
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
Those orders should be lawful and broadly reasonable but beyond that, you shouldn't be weighing each one. That's for the sphagetti hats.
Like I said, following orders is not a defense. So long as you don't mind the possibility of seeing the business end of a firing squad then feel free to blithely follow orders.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:43 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
herbie herbie:
Not at all. The Queen couldn't "check" Parliament, can't even do that in the UK.
Some years ago I was in the company of a fine British officer and a group of other gentlemen and some of them expressed their republican leanings and took the discussion up to the line of insubordination (IMHO) and the fine British officer responded by reminding them that his oath was to the Queen.
Which to me has been a lasting example of the British system checking a potential excess.
And then I look at Public Domain and worry that the fine British officer has been replaced by some young turd who has no sense of loyalty and for whom his oath was merely a 19th century artifact wholly absent any meaning in a modern society that evidences precious little in the way of honor.
What's so honourable about pledging allegiance to a person holding a titular position?
How about an oath of allegiance to the country and its people? To its cultures and its mores?
Jabberwalker @ Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:59 am
" I hereby pledge allegiance to Saturday Night Hockey, Rrrolling up the Rrrim and Ontario Bashing ..."
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next