Societal agreement. Generally people agree on such-and-such so it becomes law through whichever route they choose.
What makes law legal?
- Thread starter El Barto
- Start date
Party did act with peoples’ consent. It was in the party platform and people voted for the party. That means people tacitly gave consent, however much they may have opposed it later on.
If fault lies with anybody, it lies with the voters, for not paying attention to the PC party platform. If anything, Mulroney has my admiration for implementing the GST. He was convinced it was the right thing to do, he had obtained consent of the people, and he had the courage of his convictions to implement it, in the face of strong opposition.
It is really very simple what constitutes the law. If something is passed by House of Commons, the Senate and given Royal assent by GG, it is the law. Unless courts later strike it down.
People really don’t have much say in it, except that they can vote the government out at the next election, if they don’t like the laws implemented by the government. However, even if people don’t like the law, they must still obey it, while perhaps trying to get it repealed.
Consent of the people is not necessary to pass a law. This was clear by GST. GST was strongly opposed by the people. Still it became the law and people had to obey it.
I don't think so. Due process is what makes the law. As to agreement, who has to agree to it, people? It doesn't work that way.
That is the biggest problem with representative gov't. People get others to represent their wishes. If the representatives want something they push it through regardless of whether the people wish it or not. That is legal. That's the way it is. If people don't want something, that's tough.
If you want something done right, do it yourself. Don't get some dipshyte politician to do it because you likely will not be happy with the outcome.
Only partially. People trust these representatives to carry out their wishes. If the pols don't do that, there's very little recourse the people have but to avoid electing the pols at the next election. It's the goofiest system going besides straight dictatorship because the people lose and the pols get to play at the people's expense.
"And when did you read me say that Bush was unqualified to be the president? I never said any such thing. Sure Bush was qualified, people elected him. Nevertheless, he was also a bloodthirsty, shoot from the hip moron."
Don't flatter yourself, SirJosephPorter.
I only said:
'At least one yahoo - with no valid argument - said that the fact he was elected qualifies him to the be President.'
Did I say that you were that yahoo?
But you forget that George W. Bush was qualified to be President, not because he was elected (that is a typical as-backwards liberal reasoning) but because he was a twice-elected Governor of the third largest state, a successful business man and a decent and honest person. Which Obama is not. He is just a moron with extensive experience as a community agitator, a degree with Marxist credentials, a friend of terrorists and a follower of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose greatest priority is to damn his own country.
No, you were not the yahoo I was referring to. Don't flatter yourself.
Don't flatter yourself, SirJosephPorter.
I only said:
'At least one yahoo - with no valid argument - said that the fact he was elected qualifies him to the be President.'
Did I say that you were that yahoo?
But you forget that George W. Bush was qualified to be President, not because he was elected (that is a typical as-backwards liberal reasoning) but because he was a twice-elected Governor of the third largest state, a successful business man and a decent and honest person. Which Obama is not. He is just a moron with extensive experience as a community agitator, a degree with Marxist credentials, a friend of terrorists and a follower of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose greatest priority is to damn his own country.
No, you were not the yahoo I was referring to. Don't flatter yourself.
Last edited:
And where does it say that being a governor of a large state is a qualification to be the president? What state was Nixon governor of? Ford? That is plainly nonsense.
Obama is not a moron, he has a law degree from Harvard. As to terrorism, I have come across the opinion that Obama is a Muslim terrorist. That is about on par with the claim that he is an illegal alien (or a Nazi, or a Communist etc.).
Makes no difference. If I want to respond to a point, I will do so.
Whoa, hang on there taxslave!!! ARe you talking the one against Gore or the one against Kerry? I know the one against Kerry was a squeaker, I think they had to wait for the last state to be fully counted (Ohio) if I recall, BUT the one against Gore was a real nail biter, didn't get settled until several days after the election while they waited for the absentee votes for Florida. Actually in the that one Gore may have even got the popular vote, but Bush took the electoral colleges. I often wonder what the difference would be today had Gore got elected. :smile:
I don't think so. We all accept it when we pay for everything we buy. When the population truly doesn't agree with what the government is doing, than it has a responsibility to react and do something about.
Hey, Y.J. it's a subject not worth arguing over. Let's just say for now that Obama and Bush are tied as to their qualifications for President and that way everyone should be happy. :smile:
It's ironic Anna but I drew the same conclusion................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
"And where does it say that being a governor of a large state is a qualification to be the president?"
Common sense, SirJosephPorter, which you plainly and simply seem to lack.
If one wants to be a car sales manager, one needs to have experience as a salesman.
If one wants to be colonel, one needs to have been a corporal, first.
If one wants to be a chef, one had to have been a busboy, first.
When a new recruit is promoted to be a colonel he gets the respect he deserves.
When a busboy is promoted to be head chef, the restaurant will lose all business.
Sounds familiar? Obama is a boy who stumbled into a man's job.
Pity the country he is about to ruin.
Common sense, SirJosephPorter, which you plainly and simply seem to lack.
If one wants to be a car sales manager, one needs to have experience as a salesman.
If one wants to be colonel, one needs to have been a corporal, first.
If one wants to be a chef, one had to have been a busboy, first.
When a new recruit is promoted to be a colonel he gets the respect he deserves.
When a busboy is promoted to be head chef, the restaurant will lose all business.
Sounds familiar? Obama is a boy who stumbled into a man's job.
Pity the country he is about to ruin.
And this has nothing to do with the law, Jack.
The Law is an ass! It takes an honest man to live outside the law. The law is only law if you agree to have it as an authority over you, otherwise, you can use it against itself to free yourself. But I know that one will not be understood by those who allow it to rule over their lives. The law is for those who do not trust themselves to behave in a civilized manor without it.
If you break the law then you acknowledge the law as authority. If you get caught, you surrender your freedom to the law. If your are convicted and do jail time, you have accepted that the law is greater than you are. If you do not accept the law as having authority over you, it cannot/you will not let it judge you. There are ways to use the law to remove its authority over you, but that takes a lot of work. Best to just give the law no reason to even acknowledge your existence.
The law is made legal by the fact, in Canada, that the law is in place, implemented and enforced in the name of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. As the entirety of Canada is the property of The Crown of Canada, our laws are enacted in the Queen’s name, as all of Canada is vested in Her Majesty. Of course, the Queen acts through Her Majesty’s Government for Canada which is responsible to our elected representatives in the House of Commons.
Essentially, it is the principle of responsible government that gives legitimacy to the law.
Essentially, it is the principle of responsible government that gives legitimacy to the law.
So called Crown Land in Canada is the property of the Corporation of Canada and from all the opinions of governments past and present expressed on these forums and elsewhere, we have not had a responsible government for a very long time, if ever.
I’m talking about the principle of “responsible government” in the sense of a Westminster-style of governance, Cliffy.
The Government acts in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, as Her Majesty is the head of State; since everything in Canada flows from the Crown, and the Queen is the personification of that institution, it is indeed the existence of our constitutional monarchy and the responsible government that has evolved out of that institution that lends its legitimacy to the rule of law.
The Government acts in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, as Her Majesty is the head of State; since everything in Canada flows from the Crown, and the Queen is the personification of that institution, it is indeed the existence of our constitutional monarchy and the responsible government that has evolved out of that institution that lends its legitimacy to the rule of law.
I am well aware of your definitions and meanings. I only recognize the Law of Nature and the Law of Karma. I bow to no soveriegn, symbolic or otherwise. Maritime and Common Law are there to enforce servitude to fictitious Crowns, states and imaginary lines drawn on maps.
Within reason. If the government is absolutely convinced that it is right and that people don't appreciate the full picture, then it is incumbent upon the government to govern as it sees best, and then risk peoples' wrath come next election.
That is your common sense, not everyone agrees with you. By your definition, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford were not qualified to be presidents. I am sure many conservatives will disagree with you.
Ruin the country? Surely you jest. I thought Republicans were going to get veto proof majorities in the Senate and the House in November and were going to govern the country, by overriding Obama's vetoes. And election of Palin in 2012 was positively going to usher a Utopia, a Second Coming in USA. Am i wrong?
Quite so. It is the due process which makes a legitimate law. While the government may take public opinion into account, it doesn't necessarily have to pass laws based upon what people feel.
We get the government we deserve, Cliffy. If we want to blame somebody for the irresponsible government we should look into the mirror.