The Essence of the Dominion -2009
Letter Summary - a response to the Monarchist League of Canada
To me, the Office held by Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II embodies/ possesses/ (is the Fount of) the "Essence of Everything Canadian" and the Holder of the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada should represent/ steward/ (protect the integrity of) that "Essence".
Promoting and preserving the above the fray, independence of the supra-democratic order of Canadian governance should be one of the foremost reasons for the Monarchist League's existence.
To my mind a Governor General "with a popularly-acknowledged mandate" could Withhold Assent on a Bill of dubious merit or Reserve for "Signification via a plebiscite/referendum", a contentious law, that had squeaked thru on a 50%+1 party-mentary majority despite widespread opposition.
rce
Dear Dominion Secretary and Monarchist League members,
I received the League's, per-capita cost survey and update today by mail (pity it's not a .pdf) and was overjoyed to see the reference to the relatively-unknown, 1947 Letters Patent in the overview of the Governor General's powers (N.B. who knew the G.G. had became our "Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada" via this modern-era re-statement of the Office's scope - certainly not anyone only studying the 1867-1982(as amended) Constitutions) .
But I wonder why your editors and board neglected to include mention of the Assent/ Withhold Assent/ Reserve for Signification, Executive duties and powers of the Vice-Regal Office(s) from such a comprehensively researched document?
More importantly, why did your board miss the opportunity to point out to Canadians (including the PM's, contra-constitutional cabal, the PCO/PMO) the truly "superior", constitutionally-entrenched, position-of-authority held by our Governor General (and Lt.Governors) by explaining the never-amended s.12, vis a vis s.13, powers of the GovGen (& s.65, vis a vis s.66 for LtGov's) to make the abovementioned ss. 55, 56, 57 ( &s. 90) and all other Executive decisions, "as individuals" i.e. without the Advise and/or Advise and Consent of their Privy Council/(Executive Councils)?
Promoting and preserving the above the fray, independence of this supra-democratic order of Canadian governance and widely-explaining this (pen)ultimate power position i.e. subject only to Disallowance by the Monarch (in Council ... but see postscript) of the Vice-Regal(s) could be the cornerstones of your mission and the foremost reasons for the League's existence.
To me, the Office held by Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II embodies/possesses/originates/(is the Fount of) the "Essence of Everything Canadian" and the Holder of the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada represents/stewards/(protects the integrity of) that "Essence".
Long Live the Office of Governor General!
Yours truly,
Robert Ede
P.S. In addition, would you agree that HRH the Queen (specifically with regard to the Dominion of Canada) has enjoyed this same freedom from the requirement to accept the Advise and Consent of Her Privy Council since the enactment of the Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11?
I reach my conclusion that the members of the U.K. Privy Council (as part of the U.K. Parliament - the "Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons") have legally removed themselves from authority over Canada from the U.K. Act's phrases ...
"Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled ... 2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law." ... ( pls see End Note 80 to Constitution Act, 1982).
Yes? No?
Preposterous?
Why am I bothered with this?
To re-instate (without another Meech/Charlottetown/Amending Formula schmozzle) the Legislative Order, vis a vis, Executive Order, balance and counter-balance of power as plainly intended in 1867.
To my mind a Governor General "with a popularly-acknowledged mandate" could Withhold Assent on a Bill of dubious merit or Reserve for "Signification" via a plebiscite/referendum, a contentious law, that had squeaked thru on a 50%+1 party-mentary majority despite widespread opposition.
The Bill extending Civil Marriage comes to mind ... I'd have enjoyed a national plebiscite/referendum on that.
rce
To me, the Office held by Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II embodies/ possesses/ (is the Fount of) the "Essence of Everything Canadian" and the Holder of the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada should represent/ steward/ (protect the integrity of) that "Essence".
Promoting and preserving the above the fray, independence of the supra-democratic order of Canadian governance should be one of the foremost reasons for the Monarchist League's existence.
To my mind a Governor General "with a popularly-acknowledged mandate" could Withhold Assent on a Bill of dubious merit or Reserve for "Signification via a plebiscite/referendum", a contentious law, that had squeaked thru on a 50%+1 party-mentary majority despite widespread opposition.
rce
Dear Dominion Secretary and Monarchist League members,
I received the League's, per-capita cost survey and update today by mail (pity it's not a .pdf) and was overjoyed to see the reference to the relatively-unknown, 1947 Letters Patent in the overview of the Governor General's powers (N.B. who knew the G.G. had became our "Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada" via this modern-era re-statement of the Office's scope - certainly not anyone only studying the 1867-1982(as amended) Constitutions) .
But I wonder why your editors and board neglected to include mention of the Assent/ Withhold Assent/ Reserve for Signification, Executive duties and powers of the Vice-Regal Office(s) from such a comprehensively researched document?
More importantly, why did your board miss the opportunity to point out to Canadians (including the PM's, contra-constitutional cabal, the PCO/PMO) the truly "superior", constitutionally-entrenched, position-of-authority held by our Governor General (and Lt.Governors) by explaining the never-amended s.12, vis a vis s.13, powers of the GovGen (& s.65, vis a vis s.66 for LtGov's) to make the abovementioned ss. 55, 56, 57 ( &s. 90) and all other Executive decisions, "as individuals" i.e. without the Advise and/or Advise and Consent of their Privy Council/(Executive Councils)?
Promoting and preserving the above the fray, independence of this supra-democratic order of Canadian governance and widely-explaining this (pen)ultimate power position i.e. subject only to Disallowance by the Monarch (in Council ... but see postscript) of the Vice-Regal(s) could be the cornerstones of your mission and the foremost reasons for the League's existence.
To me, the Office held by Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II embodies/possesses/originates/(is the Fount of) the "Essence of Everything Canadian" and the Holder of the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada represents/stewards/(protects the integrity of) that "Essence".
Long Live the Office of Governor General!
Yours truly,
Robert Ede
P.S. In addition, would you agree that HRH the Queen (specifically with regard to the Dominion of Canada) has enjoyed this same freedom from the requirement to accept the Advise and Consent of Her Privy Council since the enactment of the Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11?
I reach my conclusion that the members of the U.K. Privy Council (as part of the U.K. Parliament - the "Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons") have legally removed themselves from authority over Canada from the U.K. Act's phrases ...
"Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled ... 2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law." ... ( pls see End Note 80 to Constitution Act, 1982).
Yes? No?
Preposterous?
Why am I bothered with this?
To re-instate (without another Meech/Charlottetown/Amending Formula schmozzle) the Legislative Order, vis a vis, Executive Order, balance and counter-balance of power as plainly intended in 1867.
To my mind a Governor General "with a popularly-acknowledged mandate" could Withhold Assent on a Bill of dubious merit or Reserve for "Signification" via a plebiscite/referendum, a contentious law, that had squeaked thru on a 50%+1 party-mentary majority despite widespread opposition.
The Bill extending Civil Marriage comes to mind ... I'd have enjoyed a national plebiscite/referendum on that.
rce
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 5:37 pm
|
0 comments
