|
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Gremmie
(Post 8651671)
A bit of a stupid argument this Souvy, coz when she pops her clogs and her she will be replaced by whom ever so the cost will be their any way..
Who owns the crown jewels and all the other gifts given to the Monarchy? Personally I am happy to see the monarchy continue in whoever is positioned on it. It is always our safety valve in the case of the country needing a rallying point above the political power if it ever switched to some extreme end of the spectrum (came close with the last lot). |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Clay Buster
(Post 8680050)
cornmatthew - have you been reading a different document? Most of the appellant's claims were thrown out, and he was given 30 days leave to resubmit more particular claims. As was pointed out, he is (or was not at the time of his action) a citizen, and thus had no charter rights!
Roach was (and is) a republican and argued the same point as you do, albeit from the opposite direction. As somebody opposed to the monarchy, he felt that he could not in all good conscience swear the oath. He argued that the oath requirement was an infringement of various Charter rights and wanted to be allowed citizenship without having to take the oath. The court found, essentially, that the oath amounts to a declaration of allegiance to the Canadian constitution as personified by the Queen, rather than to the Queen personally or the monarchy specifically. And so there is nothing preventing a person who advocates peaceful constitutional change from taking the oath and becoming a citizen: Against this constitutional background, the oath of allegiance has to be understood to be binding in the same way as the rest of the Constitution of Canada not forever, nor in some inherent way, but only so long as the Constitution is unamended in that respect. It is a matter of common sense and common consent that it is neither unconstitutional, nor illegal, nor inappropriate to advocate the amendment of the Constitution. The proponents of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords did not walk with trepidation in their advocacy of those amendments at least not on that score. Paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 itself "dares" constitutionally to legitimize the abolition of the monarchy. All that is required for constitutional legitimacy is that the constitutionally provided amending formula be followed. Given that the appellant does not advocate revolutionary change (i.e., change contrary to the Constitution itself), [...] his freedom of expression (paragraph 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (paragraph 2(c)) and freedom of association (paragraph 2(d)) cannot conceivably be limited by the oath of allegiance, since the taking of the oath of allegiance in no way diminishes the exercise of those freedoms. The fact that the oath "personalizes" one particular constitutional provision has no constitutional relevance, since that personalization is derived from the Constitution itself. As it was put by Professor Frank MacKinnon, The Crown in Canada, Glenbow-Alberta Institute, 1976, at page 69, "Elizabeth II is the personal expression of the Crown of Canada". Even thus personalized, that part of the Constitution relating to the Queen is amendable, and so its amendment may be freely advocated, consistently with the oath of allegiance, either by expression, by peaceful assembly or by association. |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Dave+Jules
(Post 8680091)
I would much rather have a Monarch than some slimy politician. 8million is peanuts compared to the revenue generated by all that surrounds the monarchy. I dread to think what the cost of separating crown lands and state revenues from them would take in the courts.
Who owns the crown jewels and all the other gifts given to the Monarchy? Personally I am happy to see the monarchy continue in whoever is positioned on it. It is always our safety valve in the case of the country needing a rallying point above the political power if it ever switched to some extreme end of the spectrum (came close with the last lot). Exactly what I said earlier! Very well put. Im waiting for the "the monarch is a drain on the British tax payer" argument again...<yawn> is 60p a year really worth that much to them what can you actually buy for that?..... a pointless arguement. |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by cornmatthew
(Post 8680109)
Read the whole opinion, not just the bit at the end marked 'CONCLUSIONS'. :)
Roach was (and is) a republican and argued the same point as you do, albeit from the opposite direction. As somebody opposed to the monarchy, he felt that he could not in all good conscience swear the oath. He argued that the oath requirement was an infringement of various Charter rights and wanted to be allowed citizenship without having to take the oath. The court found, essentially, that the oath amounts to a declaration of allegiance to the Canadian constitution as personified by the Queen, rather than to the Queen personally or the monarchy specifically. And so there is nothing preventing a person who advocates peaceful constitutional change from taking the oath and becoming a citizen: As the judgement states: Obviously, the newly-elected Bloc Québécois Members of Parliament had no difficulty swearing the oath of allegiance to the Queen, even though they are committed to working democratically to achieve a monarch-less independent state. |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 8681491)
Next time I think you ought to look for a rather stronger precendent to support your argument than a fool who had his claims dismissed in three successive judgements ;)
A few pages back on this thread, somebody claimed that a republican couldn't take the oath of allegiance. The court considered that argument and threw it out. |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by cornmatthew
(Post 8681508)
I'm agreeing with the court, not with Roach. :)
A few pages back on this thread, somebody claimed that a republican couldn't take the oath of allegiance. The court considered that argument and threw it out. |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 8680308)
Hear Hear!!
Exactly what I said earlier! Very well put. Im waiting for the "the monarch is a drain on the British tax payer" argument again...<yawn> is 60p a year really worth that much to them what can you actually buy for that?..... a pointless arguement. |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by dollface
(Post 8688114)
I'm with you - God save the Queen!
|
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Long Live the Queen. Long may the Monarchy reign.:thumbup:
|
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by dollface
(Post 8688114)
I'm with you - God save the Queen!
YAY!:thumbup: |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 8690774)
Thankyou dollface.... there isnt really any other way, the monarchy is what made Britain and the British .......British..many people just dont realise what a treasure they really have for such little return.
Exactly... otherwise we may as well just be America, or worse... France.:thumbdown: |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I
(Post 8690925)
Long Live the Queen. Long may the Monarchy reign.:thumbup:
It is very unbritish to call for yourself to have a longer reign Elizabeth I. I thought i saw you hanging about in Westminister Abbey (well laying around perhaps):D |
Re: Is She Worth It ???
Originally Posted by Dave+Jules
(Post 8691335)
It is very unbritish to call for yourself to have a longer reign Elizabeth I. I thought i saw you hanging about in Westminister Abbey (well laying around perhaps):D
:p lol.... :rofl: |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:59 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.