Re: Canada Pays More For Monarchy Than UKAug 10th, 2009
Under such circumstances where The Queen or Her Majesty’s viceregal representatives may need to make a decision contrary to the head of Government of the day, these representatives have access to the most experienced and learned constitutional scholars—we can trust that such decisions are not made without due regard to the written constitution and our unwritten constitutional conventions. By the very appointed nature of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, we can be absolutely comfortable in the knowledge that they truly do act as a constitutional safeguard. We can trust that such a viceregal decision is made for the country, rather than for a party, because (a) the Governor General holds higher constitutional rank than the prime minister, meaning that the pressure that a Government can place on a Governor General can be curbed; (b) the Governor General has no party, and therefore can make decisions notwithstanding the wishes of the nation’s parties, and (c) the Governor General does not need to seek re-election or approval, and therefore can make decisions based on what is constitutional and correct, rather than what is popular (and this is what we need when a constitutional crisis arises).Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
And dumpthemonarchy, if you are of the opinion that Indian treaties do not need to be respected, then that would be another topic on which we very much disagree—I would be happy to engage you in that conversation elsewhere,...
Hmm, constitutional safeguards. They will likely go out the window real fast if there actually was an insurrection in the country. Look at Trudeau with the War Measures Act in 1970. Which was supported by 87% of the public. Constitutional scholars do what Bismarck said, paraphrasing, "It is my job to do it, and your job (academics) to analyse why."
Govts do not look to the ivory tower when they need to act, and the public does not expect them to. Who is elected? Who is responsible after the mess? Sure, we need scholars to lay out the rules, but they do not govern, and governing is what this is all about. There is a quiet demand for change, we're not a revolutionary people but we don't expect things to stagnate.
I don't like it that an unelected dilletante had an influence over fed politics last winter. Her job is political, whether she or anyone else feels that way or not. She got involved in the dirty but necessary work of politics. She is no longer above politics. So this position must be elected to openly reveal her agenda.