Re: See article 3
Submitted by va3svd on March 23 2002 02:17:28
In reply to See article 3 submitted by Forgiven on March 22 2002 16:51:16
| My point was that the Queen is not the Queen of Canada, but of Great Britain. She is our head of state by reason of our membership in the Commonwealth. Nothing in the BNA Act or the Constitution of 1982 says that it isn't. I have to love it; Americans trying to interpret Canadian constitutional law for Canadians. I mean, we've only had interminable constitutional squabbles since Trudeau patriated the thing in '82 without even having all the provinces sign on. If you bothered to read our Constitution, you will see that we have several entities that Act in lieu of the Crown: the Governor-General, the Lieutenants-Governors (pronouce that Leftenant, too, btw) and the Privy Council. This demonstrates that we are an independent Dominion, but we do not have our own Crown. We have duly appointed representatives that act on the behalf of the Crown of Great Britain. This was my point. Thus, Her Majesty Elizabeth II is the Crown of THE COMMONWEALTH OF Great Britain, not the Crown of Canada, which is readily discernible by the fact that Buckingham Palace is in London, GB not London, ON, as beautiful a city as that is. You see the difference? I'm not saying the Crown has no authority; I'm pointing out a rather obvious fact that Canada does not have its own Crown, rather, it is subject to that of the Commonwealth. As for the other comment that Canada would declare itself a Republic if the Crown tried to enact executive authority, if you've ever seen the Canadian democracy at work (since 2 out of 3 branches of government are directly appointed by one person, that is, the PM) you'd readily realize that even Charles could do a better job in governing our affairs than Mr. Chretien and his cronies in Ottawa. |
Follow ups: