What makes law legal?

[TenPenny]

We hold elections, and give our elected representatives the authority to make laws under the rules of our constitution. That is what makes laws legal.

I'm proud to say I'm that 'yahoo' that upset YJ so much.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

We hold elections, and give our elected representatives the authority to make laws under the rules of our constitution. That is what makes laws legal.

I'm proud to say I'm that 'yahoo' that upset YJ so much.

YJ thought I was taking the credit for it, now you are taking the credit. It wouldn't surprise me if several other posters come forward. I suppose it is an honour to be called a yahoo by the likes of YJ.

 

[YukonJack]

"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."

I never said that having been a governor is the only qualification to be president. I only said that EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE is needed for that qualification.

Eisenhower was the commanding officer of the victorious Allied Forces.
Nixon was a U.S Naval commander and Vice President.

Obama's resume is sorely lacking, but a guilt-ridden America gave him a chance, based on nothing but his (half)skin colour.

 

[JLM]

"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.

Good morning Y.J. If you are going to continue arguing with a twit, ask him what position would better prepare a man for president than that of governor of a U.S. state. I really question if either the subject or the opponent aren't a waste of time, Y.J. As to the quality of Obama methinks you may be on the losing end of the argument. :lol:

"YJ thought I was taking the credit for it, now you are taking the credit. It wouldn't surprise me if several other posters come forward. I suppose it is an honour to be called a yahoo by the likes of YJ."- But more importantly the truth.

 

[El Barto]

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.

Very Good point.

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.

hmmm interesting

 

[YukonJack]

Cliffy, a murderer lives outside of the law.
An embezzler lives outside of the law.
A rapist and a pedophile lives outside of the law.

Are they really HONEST in your opinion?

If you don't agree that murder is wrong, or if you think that stealing from others is OK, or if you think that diddling kids is just mighty fine and don't agree with the law that says otherwise, makes you an honest person, you are welcome to that view.

 

[El Barto]

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.

Ok that's a text book answer. Nothing wrong with that. But what if it does not have the support of the people. We are a democracy by name but are we truly a democracy? We vote for our representatives to represent us but if that party gets majority by one seat it has power over the other half? This not mentioning the percentage votes.

We vote for a party in most cases for the party platform. This is what we see most interesting to get our votes . So in essence we mandate them to forefil those promises, yet they break them and back pedal , usually due that they have seen some certain light that they feel it can't be done. How about laws that were never mentioned that 'pop' up while in power? We never mandated them for those did we? I like what S_lone said , on how we accepeted it with our actions. Pointing out we have no back bone IMO. Also to add , the premier's agenda and how the party member have to tote the lines .

I may be side stepping my own subject here but still.

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 think you are getting where i am going with this and leading in a way.

 

[TenPenny]

Oh, God, I'm sure this will soon involve checking your birth certificates to see if your surname is in upper case letters or not.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"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."

I never said that having been a governor is the only qualification to be president. I only said that EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE is needed for that qualification.

Eisenhower was the commanding officer of the victorious Allied Forces.
Nixon was a U.S Naval commander and Vice President.

Obama's resume is sorely lacking, but a guilt-ridden America gave him a chance, based on nothing but his (half)skin colour.

So you keep shifting the ground. First the necessary qualification was to be the governor of a big state. Then when I pointed out several Republican presidents who were not governors, now the qualification is that they must have executive experience.

You are just making things up as you go along; you have nothing to support it. Show me even one website which says that the necessary qualification for being a president is being governor of a big state or executive experience.

The only qualification is that people must elect you. There is no other qualification.

 

[El Barto]

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.

A King , a Queen , or any head of state is only legitamite bythe support of it's people , no?
What would happen if one day we (clear majority ) say we do not wish to support our head of state .? Would it make that King , Qeen, head of state illigal in all it's actions?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ok that's a text book answer. Nothing wrong with that. But what if it does not have the support of the people. We are a democracy by name but are we truly a democracy? We vote for our representatives to represent us but if that party gets majority by one seat it has power over the other half? This not mentioning the percentage votes.

If people don't support the law, let them vote the government out at the next election. BC is the case in point, people don't like harmonization. Well, it looks like it is going to go ahead, and more power to the Premier for doing what he thinks is right, rather that doing what is popular. If people don't like the harmonization, let them vote Liberals out at the next election, they have that right.

 

[TenPenny]

A King , a Queen , or any head of state is only legitamite bythe support of it's people , no?
What would happen if one day we (clear majority ) say we do not wish to support our head of state .? Would it make that King , Qeen, head of state illigal in all it's actions?

No, of course not. By definition, a King or a Queen do not need the support of the people. They are monarchs, and at the end, rule by force. Whether or not Canadians support the monarch makes no difference.

Only elected leaders need the support of 'the people'; monarchs and dictators simply need enough force to overrule the opposing forces.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A King , a Queen , or any head of state is only legitamite bythe support of it's people , no?
What would happen if one day we (clear majority ) say we do not wish to support our head of state .? Would it make that King , Qeen, head of state illigal in all it's actions?

No. Head of state is legitimate by the support of the constitution, not the support of the people. And I understand a majority of Canadians do not support the monarchy (I recall somebody posting a poll a while ago). That does not make the monarchy any less legitimate.

Sorry Tenpenny, looks like we posted the posts at about the same time (and you beat me to it).

 

[El Barto]

No, of course not. By definition, a King or a Queen do not need the support of the people. They are monarchs, and at the end, rule by force. Whether or not Canadians support the monarch makes no difference.

Only elected leaders need the support of 'the people'; monarchs and dictators simply need enough force to overrule the opposing forces.

So we would need a Bastille day to over come this?

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, you are pathetic.

You have the unmitigated nrve of accusing others of shifting the ground! Or moving the goal posts.

I made my position clear: A person needs executive experience to qualify to be president. Being elected by an unruly mob of uneducated or overeducated admirers have nothing to do with qualifications.

Watch the inevitable buyer's remorse to set in any time now.

If you were reasonable enough to read articles posted by people far smarter than you, you would know that your Messiah is going down.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, you are pathetic.

You have the unmitigated nrve of accusing others of shifting the ground! Or moving the goal posts.

I made my position clear: A person needs executive experience to qualify to be president. Being elected by an unruly mob of uneducated or overeducated admirers have nothing to do with qualifications.

Watch the inevitable buyer's remorse to set in any time now.

If you were reasonable enough to read articles posted by people far smarter than you, you would know that your Messiah is going down.

Again, that is only your opinion, YJ, that a president needs executive experience. You are saying that just because Obama doesn't have any, and you don't like Obama. What executive experience did your candidate, McCain have? What executive experience did Bob Dole (Republican nominee in 1996) have? Did you support Clinton in 1996, since he had executive experience, and Dole didn't have any?

Would you have said the same thing if McCain had been elected? I seriously doubt that.

And Obama going down (he may be your Messiah, he is not mine)? You wish.

 

[s_lone]

A King or Queen is nothing without its subjects. The Queen is only Queen of Canada because a majority of people either support monarchy, are indifferent to it, or don't agree with it but don't see direct necessity of changing the system.

Monarchy today is nothing like it used to be. 400 years ago, one would have been hanged on the spot or jailed for directly opposing monarchy. Today I can openly state my non-allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and nobody can do a damn thing about it. So long for the Queen's authority over me.

The Queen would only need to act once against the will of Canadians and the whole legacy of Canadian monarchy would implode upon itself.

On the other hand, the police, judges and all people working in the field of justice in Canada are Canadians who, for the most part, have the direct support of the Canadian population. We vote for people who have the responsibility of ensuring justice for all by administering the courts, police, army etc.

The democratic process in itself is what makes our laws legal. It's an equal power play between the population and those that are elected.

We should be thankful for this but also careful of the growing movement of apathy and cynicism when it comes to the democratic process.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, while it is true that John McCain had no executive experience, neither had Obama. And on the ticket in 2008, Republicans had more qualifications than the Democrats.

Obama got elected only for reasons of political correctness and affirmative action.
The way Obama became a "professor".

 

[El Barto]

A King or Queen is nothing without its subjects. The Queen is only Queen of Canada because a majority of people either support monarchy, are indifferent to it, or don't agree with it but don't see direct necessity of changing the system.

Monarchy today is nothing like it used to be. 400 years ago, one would have been hanged on the spot or jailed for directly opposing monarchy. Today I can openly state my non-allegiance to Queen Elizabeth and nobody can do a damn thing about it. So long for the Queen's authority over me.

The Queen would only need to act once against the will of Canadians and the whole legacy of Canadian monarchy would implode upon itself.

On the other hand, the police, judges and all people working in the field of justice in Canada are Canadians who, for the most part, have the direct support of the Canadian population. We vote for people who have the responsibility of ensuring justice for all by administering the courts, police, army etc.

The democratic process in itself is what makes our laws legal. It's an equal power play between the population and those that are elected.

We should be thankful for this but also careful of the growing movement of apathy and cynicism when it comes to the democratic process.

Umm S_lone, we don't vote for judges and policemen . We accept the appointment of judges by our ministers of justice. I would love for that power to fall directly in my hands ;0

 

[s_lone]

Umm S_lone, we don't vote for judges and policemen . We accept the appointment of judges by our ministers of justice. I would love for that power to fall directly in my hands ;0

Well that's what I said right?


''We vote for people who have the responsibility of ensuring justice for all by administering the courts, police, army etc. ''

It's true that we don't vote for judges and policemen. Perhaps we should. I'd have to give it some thought.