Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465 
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 22nd, 2006, 12:54 PM
I think not, just to be clear, Canada does not "pay" Her Majesty. She in no way lives off of Canada or its people.
You may have seen certain piece of legislation tabled in the House of Commons entitled An Act to grant certain sums of money to Her Majesty; despite the name, such legislative measures add the revenue of the Government of Canada to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Since executive power is vested in Her Majesty, if we were to discontinue appropriated funds in her name, then such funds would not, constitutionally, be available to use to pay for the public works of the Government of Canada.
I think not, just to be clear, Canada does not "pay" Her Majesty. She in no way lives off of Canada or its people.
You may have seen certain piece of legislation tabled in the House of Commons entitled An Act to grant certain sums of money to Her Majesty; despite the name, such legislative measures add the revenue of the Government of Canada to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Since executive power is vested in Her Majesty, if we were to discontinue appropriated funds in her name, then such funds would not, constitutionally, be available to use to pay for the public works of the Government of Canada.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 22nd, 2006, 10:06 PM
One must keep in mind that the Government of the United Kingdom would likely fund the Queen with the funds that we would appropriate toward the Governor General; although, I suppose Her Majesty's expenses would be a bit more ... "lavish," eh?
One must keep in mind that the Government of the United Kingdom would likely fund the Queen with the funds that we would appropriate toward the Governor General; although, I suppose Her Majesty's expenses would be a bit more ... "lavish," eh?
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,492 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
January 22nd, 2006, 10:13 PM
Queen Elizabeth is very wealthy, with a net worth in 2004 – according to Forbes magazine – of $818 million. This is the result of a nest egg put aside for her by her father during his reign as king. Other estimates put her personal fortune at $4.4 billion ($16 billion if you include the Royal Collection, which includes the crown jewels).
Link
Queen Elizabeth is very wealthy, with a net worth in 2004 – according to Forbes magazine – of $818 million. This is the result of a nest egg put aside for her by her father during his reign as king. Other estimates put her personal fortune at $4.4 billion ($16 billion if you include the Royal Collection, which includes the crown jewels).
Link
Bright Spark
Posts: 453
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
January 23rd, 2006, 08:10 PM
The House of Representatives in the US is elected fro only a 2 year term with the whole house standing for election in Nov 2006, however the Senate of the US has a six year term staggard in 2 year increments with only 1/3 of the Senate facing the polls every two years. The US senate until 1913 was appointed by the State Legislatures.
Canada's elections sometimes run over our two year limit, so the US has a built in vote of no-confidnece in the system.
Quoting
The main difference between constitutional Monarchs and Elected heads of State is that their terms are different, A set term defines how long the President of the US or Mexico will stay in office (*yrs in US-2 4 year terms, 6 years in Mexico-1 term).
But I think not, the Sovereign does not rule; rather, she reigns. It provides a last-ditch back-up to protect our democracy if it were to somehow be compromised; the duty of the Her Majesty, and in turn Her Excellency the Rt. Hon. Michaëlle Jean, is to ensure that the nation always has a Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.
The House of Representatives in the US is elected fro only a 2 year term with the whole house standing for election in Nov 2006, however the Senate of the US has a six year term staggard in 2 year increments with only 1/3 of the Senate facing the polls every two years. The US senate until 1913 was appointed by the State Legislatures.
Canada's elections sometimes run over our two year limit, so the US has a built in vote of no-confidnece in the system.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,786
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
January 24th, 2006, 06:37 PM
Every monarchy and every head of state in a monarch or constitutional monarchy runs different. Some stronger then others. In our day of enlightenment, rather Liberal Democracies/Social democracies, the head of state ie, the Governor General or the Queen pretty much stay low and make there power almost absolutely ceremonial, and mask there relevance in illusion tory's and monarchists call tradition. In fact this illusion merely covers up there irrelevance in todays modern democratic states. However! they retaine the power, or at least the ability to one day use the power of head of state. Even though nerffed the head of state can influance and sway power what he/she choses to use it.
The British monarchy and Lords were some of the first to shed there power in Europe. For a long time they saw how Nobles and Monarchs controled vast empirers at there own whim, while the parliment/assemblies were only on there whim. However by shedding there power to the house of lords and the commons and then totally to the commons, they were able to retain themselves by appearing more of a tradition of culture, powerless, figure heads. While lords and Monarchs were lossing there heads all across Europe the British nobility and monarchy was able to survive to this day way past the times they were made for. Creating a problem in these states who still use the Westminster form of government...
The problem being that there are few relevant checks and balances in the westminster form of government. The head of state, and the house of lords are nerffed by the fact they are seen as undemocratic, irrelevant and mostly there for traditional sacks and "second sober looks". Thus the commons often has a strangle hold on power, a democratic deficit which is employeed purely in the house of commons being the only legit government body elected by the people, or elected at all. It takes very little study in history to see what happens. Read Plato, John Locke, almost any of the Deism philophers of the enlightenment and the classical tests based on the Roman System. This rule by the commons thus turns into an extreme form of democracy... more or less mob rule... Controled only by FPTP. But truly no checks and balances. Was the system always like this?
The system was moduled losely after the roman empire/republic. Each body checking the power of the other. Though orginally the commons was called to really help collect taxes but the mdule developed into a working body of checks and balances which worked alright for it's time when royal and noble authority was legit.
Easyist way to fix these problems in the westminster system is pretty easy.
1. Form a Republic on the Roman/American lines with checks and banaces.
2. Keep the parlimentary system but reform it to look more like france with an elected head of state. With the elected head of state, the person can share the official title with that of the monarch. The monarch can be the traditional aspect and keep "tradition" going if tory's and traditional lists really want to spend the money on someone just lucky to be born between the right sheets, which brings up racist/classist problems in society. (classical referance.. the fact that Rome had two conculs during and after the republic.)
3. House of Lords- Elect senators to the house of lords and slowly replace those of noble birth. Allow those of "noble birth" to keep title's in there names if Tory's and traditionalists do not wish for change.
Every monarchy and every head of state in a monarch or constitutional monarchy runs different. Some stronger then others. In our day of enlightenment, rather Liberal Democracies/Social democracies, the head of state ie, the Governor General or the Queen pretty much stay low and make there power almost absolutely ceremonial, and mask there relevance in illusion tory's and monarchists call tradition. In fact this illusion merely covers up there irrelevance in todays modern democratic states. However! they retaine the power, or at least the ability to one day use the power of head of state. Even though nerffed the head of state can influance and sway power what he/she choses to use it.
The British monarchy and Lords were some of the first to shed there power in Europe. For a long time they saw how Nobles and Monarchs controled vast empirers at there own whim, while the parliment/assemblies were only on there whim. However by shedding there power to the house of lords and the commons and then totally to the commons, they were able to retain themselves by appearing more of a tradition of culture, powerless, figure heads. While lords and Monarchs were lossing there heads all across Europe the British nobility and monarchy was able to survive to this day way past the times they were made for. Creating a problem in these states who still use the Westminster form of government...
The problem being that there are few relevant checks and balances in the westminster form of government. The head of state, and the house of lords are nerffed by the fact they are seen as undemocratic, irrelevant and mostly there for traditional sacks and "second sober looks". Thus the commons often has a strangle hold on power, a democratic deficit which is employeed purely in the house of commons being the only legit government body elected by the people, or elected at all. It takes very little study in history to see what happens. Read Plato, John Locke, almost any of the Deism philophers of the enlightenment and the classical tests based on the Roman System. This rule by the commons thus turns into an extreme form of democracy... more or less mob rule... Controled only by FPTP. But truly no checks and balances. Was the system always like this?
The system was moduled losely after the roman empire/republic. Each body checking the power of the other. Though orginally the commons was called to really help collect taxes but the mdule developed into a working body of checks and balances which worked alright for it's time when royal and noble authority was legit.
Easyist way to fix these problems in the westminster system is pretty easy.
1. Form a Republic on the Roman/American lines with checks and banaces.
2. Keep the parlimentary system but reform it to look more like france with an elected head of state. With the elected head of state, the person can share the official title with that of the monarch. The monarch can be the traditional aspect and keep "tradition" going if tory's and traditional lists really want to spend the money on someone just lucky to be born between the right sheets, which brings up racist/classist problems in society. (classical referance.. the fact that Rome had two conculs during and after the republic.)
3. House of Lords- Elect senators to the house of lords and slowly replace those of noble birth. Allow those of "noble birth" to keep title's in there names if Tory's and traditionalists do not wish for change.
