the Cdn Elite's Political conspiracy-of-silence
Dear Canadians,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1) Either we have a Constitution or we do not.
2) If the gov't of the day isn't following it - why should you?
Once more with a hope and a prayer.
As I walked my dogs this morning it struck me that the "Office" of Canadian Prime Minister should really be considered more in terms of holding the Office of "Leader of the Majority/Plurality in the House" ie viewed more as Ms Pelosi in the USA's House of Reps than as Mr Obama in the Executive Mansion.
Notwithstanding our current "Hung House with Minority Ministry" (vis a vis the current UK cabinet-in-coalition) - I'm just as affronted by Mr H.'s unconstitutional posturing-as-Monarch as I was by Mr C.(with his 'prerogative talk') & Mr M. & Mr T. when they perpetuated this same fraud on the public, under the noses of the 'experienced' pundits (in colourable-collusion/ conspiracy-of-silence with every lawyer or Constitutional/BNA expert in the land).
Define your terms:
de fac·to from dictionary.com
–noun
1. in fact; in reality: Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of the country. Although the school was said to be open to all qualified students, it still practiced de facto segregation.
2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure).
3. Australian. a person who lives in an intimate relationship with but is not married to a person of the opposite sex; lover.
NB - While not my intention, the #1 definition's "example" makes my point, #2 set out what I'm trying to show.
To anyone who has absorbed the BNA/Constitution1867, the Head of State of Canada IS the Queen, represented in Canada - under authority of the BNA 1867 & re-stated in the Letters Patent of 1947 - by the Governor General.
The Governor General can as an individual (or with Advice and/or Advice&Consent of Her/His Privy Council see s.12 vs s.13) withhold assent to any Bill (ie a Veto).... no questions asked or ask-able. see ss. 55-57 and s.90
The Governor General has a council of independent, sworn-to-secrecy, lifetime-appointee Advisors that run the "permanent Executive" (Treasury Board etc etc) and the civil service on behalf of the Monarch (and the P.C. may include some cabinet members, some Senators and probably should include the PM-as Lower House Leader too, but this is not expressly specified in the BNA as it is for the Ontario Executive Council s.63)
The Prime Minister (in Canada) is referenced in the BNA (as amended) only in the 1982 changes and only in connection with calling conferences of leaders.
The Prime Minister's Office was never intended to control a) the Privy Council or b) the Public Service. We will acknowledge that these offices and 'public servants' should work together efficiently but when a conflict occurs between what's right and what's politically convenient we need (and the BNA provided) someone to stand up to a persistent and/or wily Leader of the Plurality in the Lower House.
For those intrigued here's when it happened.
The 1867 Confederation was worked out AFTER the second US Constitution had been in play for 70-some years and after the French Revolution (and aftermath) and as an arrangement "similar in principle" to the UN-WRITTEN system in place in the-then powerful, colonial, imperial, mercantile United Kingdom -- unwritten being the key word.
While our 1982 changes removed the UK Lords and Commons from Canadian lawmaking - nothing else changed (apart from yes, the conditions and limits placed on our pre-existing individual rights, the addition of the 'group rights concept' to Canada and the inclusion of impossible-to-use-beyond-bilateral-agreements Amending Formulae)
So, if the intention was for a Vice-Regal appointee (unf. now-nominated by the PM, but .... that's part 2 of Wm L M King's revenge on Byng) to actually "decide" (ie personally execute Bills/Acts/Orders) on matters that flowed up from the 'plebeian'/proletarian Common, through the 'patrician'/propertied Senate and had been vetted for fiscal-sustainability by the institutional-databanks of the Privy Council .... then .... why aren't we following that system of hierarchical checks and balances .... as-written.
As Ralphie Klein said about the Distribution of Legislative Powers in 2006, "Either we have a Constitution or we don't!"
If the gov't of the day isn't following the BNA Constitution - why should you?
rce
PS.
Don't be alarmed if this seems 'odd' to you
PPS.
Check this randomly-googled Blogger's view on the topic
-"Thoughts From the Western Edge"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1) Either we have a Constitution or we do not.
2) If the gov't of the day isn't following it - why should you?
Once more with a hope and a prayer.
As I walked my dogs this morning it struck me that the "Office" of Canadian Prime Minister should really be considered more in terms of holding the Office of "Leader of the Majority/Plurality in the House" ie viewed more as Ms Pelosi in the USA's House of Reps than as Mr Obama in the Executive Mansion.
Notwithstanding our current "Hung House with Minority Ministry" (vis a vis the current UK cabinet-in-coalition) - I'm just as affronted by Mr H.'s unconstitutional posturing-as-Monarch as I was by Mr C.(with his 'prerogative talk') & Mr M. & Mr T. when they perpetuated this same fraud on the public, under the noses of the 'experienced' pundits (in colourable-collusion/ conspiracy-of-silence with every lawyer or Constitutional/BNA expert in the land).
Define your terms:
de fac·to from dictionary.com
–noun
1. in fact; in reality: Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of the country. Although the school was said to be open to all qualified students, it still practiced de facto segregation.
2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure).
3. Australian. a person who lives in an intimate relationship with but is not married to a person of the opposite sex; lover.
NB - While not my intention, the #1 definition's "example" makes my point, #2 set out what I'm trying to show.
To anyone who has absorbed the BNA/Constitution1867, the Head of State of Canada IS the Queen, represented in Canada - under authority of the BNA 1867 & re-stated in the Letters Patent of 1947 - by the Governor General.
The Governor General can as an individual (or with Advice and/or Advice&Consent of Her/His Privy Council see s.12 vs s.13) withhold assent to any Bill (ie a Veto).... no questions asked or ask-able. see ss. 55-57 and s.90
The Governor General has a council of independent, sworn-to-secrecy, lifetime-appointee Advisors that run the "permanent Executive" (Treasury Board etc etc) and the civil service on behalf of the Monarch (and the P.C. may include some cabinet members, some Senators and probably should include the PM-as Lower House Leader too, but this is not expressly specified in the BNA as it is for the Ontario Executive Council s.63)
The Prime Minister (in Canada) is referenced in the BNA (as amended) only in the 1982 changes and only in connection with calling conferences of leaders.
The Prime Minister's Office was never intended to control a) the Privy Council or b) the Public Service. We will acknowledge that these offices and 'public servants' should work together efficiently but when a conflict occurs between what's right and what's politically convenient we need (and the BNA provided) someone to stand up to a persistent and/or wily Leader of the Plurality in the Lower House.
For those intrigued here's when it happened.
The 1867 Confederation was worked out AFTER the second US Constitution had been in play for 70-some years and after the French Revolution (and aftermath) and as an arrangement "similar in principle" to the UN-WRITTEN system in place in the-then powerful, colonial, imperial, mercantile United Kingdom -- unwritten being the key word.
While our 1982 changes removed the UK Lords and Commons from Canadian lawmaking - nothing else changed (apart from yes, the conditions and limits placed on our pre-existing individual rights, the addition of the 'group rights concept' to Canada and the inclusion of impossible-to-use-beyond-bilateral-agreements Amending Formulae)
So, if the intention was for a Vice-Regal appointee (unf. now-nominated by the PM, but .... that's part 2 of Wm L M King's revenge on Byng) to actually "decide" (ie personally execute Bills/Acts/Orders) on matters that flowed up from the 'plebeian'/proletarian Common, through the 'patrician'/propertied Senate and had been vetted for fiscal-sustainability by the institutional-databanks of the Privy Council .... then .... why aren't we following that system of hierarchical checks and balances .... as-written.
As Ralphie Klein said about the Distribution of Legislative Powers in 2006, "Either we have a Constitution or we don't!"
If the gov't of the day isn't following the BNA Constitution - why should you?
rce
PS.
Don't be alarmed if this seems 'odd' to you
PPS.
Check this randomly-googled Blogger's view on the topic
-"Thoughts From the Western Edge"
posted by Walk a Kb or Two in my cassins | 1:47 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home