It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Canadian "Prime Minister" does not exist

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Of course, by this I mean the position of Prime Minister (not the actual persons who hold or have held the position), and am referring to its existence in legal terms.
Source of excerpts



Not outlined in any constitutional document, the office exists only as per long-established convention originating in Canada's former colonial power, the United Kingdom, which stipulate that the monarch's representative, the governor general, must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber.




The position of prime minister is outlined in no Canadian constitutional document and is mentioned only in passing in Schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982,[3][4] and the Letters Patent issued in 1947 by King George VI.[5]


There you have it, the position of Prime Minister, often considered (wrongly so) to be the official Head of State of Canada is not described in any constitutional document. It is described as a "long-established convention", much as it is a "long established convention" to eat turkey at thanksgiving.



The prime minister, along with the other ministers in cabinet, is appointed by the governor general on behalf of the Queen.[6]


Our true and official Head of State is Her Majesty, Elizabeth II Queen of Canada. She has the final and only say in the matter of who is Prime Minister of Canada and its provinces. Her "instructions" are officially channeled through her representative in Canada, and second in command, the Governor General of Canada, presently The Right Honourable David Lloyd Johnston.


Once in office, these individuals (the Governors General) maintain direct contact with the Queen, wherever she may be at the time.[2]


Most of us already know that, as is the case for the American system, the Canadian voter does not vote for the Prime Minister, our indirect system gives us a say toward our local representative only. Once the tabulation complete, we must wait upon the Queen's decision as to who will be our countries Prime Minister.



It is not actually clear as to whether there are age or citizenship restrictions on the position of prime minister itself, as it is not necessary for the incumbent to be a sitting MP.


The Prime Minister does not have to be chosen from a pool of sitting MP's, nor must it be the leader of the party having elected the highest number of representatives, it is 100% up to the Queen, though, by convention, the . of the majority party is sworn in as Prime Minister.



In rare circumstances individuals who are not members of the Commons can be appointed prime minister. Two former prime ministers — Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell — served in the 1890s while members of the Senate;[9]


The point of this thread is to emphasize that, although it has somewhat been hidden from public view, the only . of state for Canada is the Queen, who, by many accounts is highly intelligent, aware, and involved in the politics of every member of the Commonwealth.

Just a thought to keep in mind during these elections. YES you have a vote, but NO, as a subject to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, you cannot change your . of state.

the Billmeister

p.s.
All bold in citations mine.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Sometimes these things evolve into being.
In the US, nowhere is it written into the Constitution that we have to have policital parties. They didn't exist, but by the second presidency, they were in full swing, now our whole polical realm is based on them.

Good luck getting rid of it.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
yes
all the people who have been saying that
we live in an illusion of self determination
are nuts

edit on 13-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Here in the United Kingdom it's a know fact that the Head Of State Of Canada is Queen Elizabeth II She has the right to remove any Prime Minister of a British Crown Colony as she seems deemed to. She did this with the then Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975. The land that is Canada is 96% owned by The Crown.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Sometimes these things evolve into being.
In the US, nowhere is it written into the Constitution that we have to have policital parties. They didn't exist, but by the second presidency, they were in full swing, now our whole polical realm is based on them.

Good luck getting rid of it.


Yes indeed, however, in the case of political parties there is always the option of voting independent.

But, in the case of sovereignty, the traditional methods of poisoning, war, incestual intermarriage are somewhat frowned upon in our day, leaving absolutely no way, other than the sovereign stepping down, of changing the situation.

I truly believe that, for all the commonwealth nations, the day the actual Queen dies will be a very dramatic event. Her reign is accepted as a sort of symbolic convention, even though it is absolute, however, I'm not convinced the new sovereign will be accepted with open arms.

the Billmeister



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Harper was busted lying about being a builderberger attendee before his first election..
he also calles his government the "Harper government"
claiming to run the country
this is just another example of his lying

so the queen runs our country eh?
*sigh*
kingdom- king
empire - emperor
country-



edit on 13-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
yes
all the people who have been saying that we live in an illusion of self determination are nuts

Is your point that we are living in a delusion or not? I say we have self determination, demonstrated by the fact that all three major parties have very different visions of where to take the country. And yes, our legislative process may look pretty quaint and arcane, but it has served us quite well. S&F to the OP for taking the time to remind us that there is more to governance than what we absorb from American television.
edit on 13-4-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: of spelling



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Didn't they teach us this in Canadian history classes? Someone should have paid attention in school.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Here in the United Kingdom it's a know fact that the Head Of State Of Canada is Queen Elizabeth II She has the right to remove any Prime Minister of a British Crown Colony as she seems deemed to. She did this with the then Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975. The land that is Canada is 96% owned by The Crown.


In Canada, it has been policy since the Trudeau October Crisis of 1970 to not publicize this reality.

There are many Canadians who consider "Crown Land" and "Crown Corporations" as belonging to "the People", when in fact, they are 100% the property of the Queen.

the Billmeister



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


read:
*harper was busted going to a builderberger meeting before his first election*
they said we could have self determination


well over 51 percent of canadians said legalize pot
when polled before the last several elections
do we have self determination yet?
edit on 13-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


In the case of Australians they are in a slightly better situation as only 56% of Australia is owned by The Crown.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
To be clear, the situation is not necessarily a bad one.

Yes, from an ideological standpoint, we like to believe in pure self determination, but in reality this isn't the case with any type of government.

In our constitutional monarchy, the Queen can act as a safe guard against anyone trying to "usurp" unwarranted power. In this case, by most accounts, the Queen is very intelligent, aware and responsible when it comes to interfering in the governments of the commonwealth. The potential danger arises if (and/or when) the monarch is not so responsible and disciplined.

the Billmeister



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Harper was busted lying about being a builderberger attendee before his first election..
he also calles his government the "Harper government"
claiming to run the country
this is just another example of his lying


If you want to remove Harper from power, the constitutional action you can take is to write a petition asking the Queen to do so. She is the only one who holds this power.

If you want to remove the Conservative party from power, you must ensure that independent or alternative party candidates gain the greatest amount of seats in the House of Commons, that is how our constitutional monarchy works.

the Billmeister



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister

Originally posted by Danbones
Harper was busted lying about being a builderberger attendee before his first election..
he also calles his government the "Harper government"
claiming to run the country
this is just another example of his lying


If you want to remove Harper from power, the constitutional action you can take is to write a petition asking the Queen to do so. She is the only one who holds this power.

If you want to remove the Conservative party from power, you must ensure that independent or alternative party candidates gain the greatest amount of seats in the House of Commons, that is how our constitutional monarchy works.

the Billmeister


The clear message is VOTE. Even another Harper minority (with some mojo in opposition for a change) is...IMHO...preferable to handing the Neocons the keys to the kingdom.

But that's just me. The electorate will decide.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Just think, a little battle on the Plains of Abraham and the Queen gets 75% of our country. It just does not seem right. Maybe if we were to engage them again... And our natives are still fighting to have the treaties recognized and respected that they entered into with the crown . So much for the lousy integrity of the crown.

Now about her progeny taking over some day, that thought leaves me almost in stupor. His "Majesty"? Now there's a word that would need a brand new definition and a forum of its own on ATS!

I plan to vote, but the liberals and conservatives are just different sides of the same coin. Both are engaged in the NWO to bring about a banker's corporate heaven on earth, and I'm quite confident they both have the exact same handlers behind the scenes. Witness our escalating militarism and Bill C-36. So I will vote strategically I guess.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by amp1214
 


In Canadian public schools we were taught the Government of Canada became Independent and does not answer to the Authority of the Queen. They say the Governor General is now more for show than it is for power.

I highly doubted this always and still believe the royals have control over us. Where do you think all the money from our natural resources/exports are going thats right the UK.....

Canadians politicians are just as corrupt as the U.S ones.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


The Conservative party is insane they want to privatize health care to hell with them.

edit on 17-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


The Conservative party is insane they want to privatize health care to hell with them.

edit on 17-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)


Though I much prefer a multi-party system to the two-party variety, the problem we have in Canada is that the multiple parties only exists on the left side.

Even though the Conservative government will likely never get majority support from Canadians, those opposed to them split up their votes to 2 or 3 different parties, likely ensuring the Conservatives remain as .s of parliament.

I mentioned it in an earlier post, somewhat jestingly, but I would be very curious to see the reaction of a substantial petition, directed to the Queen, asking for a change of Prime Ministers.
After all, she has the sole constitutional authority to name the person supposed to have the highest degree of confidence of the Canadian people. They DO NOT need to be the . of the party with the majority of elected representatives.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

the Billmeister



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Billmeister

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


The Conservative party is insane they want to privatize health care to hell with them.

edit on 17-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)


Though I much prefer a multi-party system to the two-party variety, the problem we have in Canada is that the multiple parties only exists on the left side.

Even though the Conservative government will likely never get majority support from Canadians, those opposed to them split up their votes to 2 or 3 different parties, likely ensuring the Conservatives remain as .s of parliament.


You will recall that once upon a time, there were Progressive Conservatives and the Reform. Peter McKay broke his word to his caucus, and now we have a united Right. Personally? I have no problems with a coalition on the other side. Steve says that it endangers national stability (except when he suggests it for himself)...I say it encourages all the kids in the sandbox to play nice.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck


You will recall that once upon a time, there were Progressive Conservatives and the Reform. Peter McKay broke his word to his caucus, and now we have a united Right. Personally? I have no problems with a coalition on the other side. Steve says that it endangers national stability (except when he suggests it for himself)...I say it encourages all the kids in the sandbox to play nice.


Exactly, Harper and his cronies ate up the Reform Party, just when they were starting to gain a little national credibility. At the moment, even though Layton doesn't seem like someone who can lead this country, I think he's our best option at this point.

Harper obviously needs to go, Ignatieff can't be trusted either, since he's voted with the Cons on several key issues over the years, and Duceppe's party isn't even running in most of the country.

Unfortunately, the way the polls are looking now, Canada's only hope at this point is another minority Conservative government, which will lead to another election, and another, and another. Maybe at some point the queen will just say "Hey Harper, what the h### are you doing over there? You're fired!" Probably not though




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join