Should the Bill of Rights 1689 be compulsory reading in compulsory education?

[petros]

Seletion? The Monarch rules in Canada through the Governor General, and the Governor General is bound by the Constitution of Canada and the Monarch has one and only one purpose as a legal witness. That's it. She has the same power as notary public or commisioner of oaths.

 

[Machjo]

5P, at least in its modernized spelling, the Bill of Rights 1689 is no more difficult than Shakespeare, or even easier though certianly much less exciting. But if jr. secondary students can learn Shakespeare, they can certainly learn the bill of Rights, either in English class or civics or both depending on the way the teachers want to present it. Perhaps both would be good, taught at the same time, with the English teacher focusing on difficult vocab and grammar, and the civics teacher focusing on its legal aspect. Or if there are no civics classes, then the history teacher could take the role of the civics teacher too, with a greater focus on the historical references of the document.

So it's really not that difficult.

 

[FiveParadox]

Seletion? The Monarch rules in Canada through the Governor General,

The selection of The Sovereign of Canada is determined by the Act of Settlement, 1701, and the provisions of that Act are binding in Canada. It is the Letters Patent, 1947, that constitute the Office of the Governor General of Canada; it is the authority of the Queen that creates that Office, and it cannot exist independently of our constitutional monarchy. These latters patent grant several powers to the Governor General, but it should not be thought that this strips Her Majesty of the right to exercise these powers personally, should it be the Queen's pleasure to do so. Any executive function of the Governor General is carried out in the name of the Queen.

and the Governor General is bound by the Constitution of Canada

Absolutely, the Governor General is bound by every Act of the Parliament of Canada, including the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982. However, those Acts also grant to the Governor General--along with the letters patent--extensive reserve powers to use as the Governor General might see fit. The Constitution Acts, 1867-1982 actually make very few precise indications of how the Governor General should perform these executive functions; it's not even stated, anywhere in the constitution, that the prime minister exists, never mind that the Governor General must always follow his advice. Conventions, and constitutional documents, are two very different things.

and the Monarch has one and only one purpose as a legal witness. That's it. She has the same power as notary public or commisioner of oaths.

This is entirely incorrect.

The Queen is one of the constituent parts of the Canadian Parliament. Let's remember that our national legislature actually consists of three parts: Her Majesty the Queen (represented on most occasions by the Governor General), the Honourable the Senate of Canada, and the elected House of Commons. It is in the Queen's name that bills are given royal assent--and let's be clear, no bill can become an Act of Parliament without that royal assent. Justice is dispensed in the name of the Queen, and the prime minister and his ministers form Her Majesty's Government for Canada--with which the Queen, and therefore the Governor General, retains at all times the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn.

The Queen also has a few powers that cannot be exercised by any other authority in Canada (and that includes the Governor General). Pursuant to s. 16 of the Constitution Act, 1867, only Her Majesty may designate the national capital city; s. 26 of the Act requires the Governor General to receive the Queen's agreement before appointing "extra" senators (up to eight senators above the one-hundred-five seat count); and only the Queen can disallow Acts of Parliament that have been granted royal assent by the Governor General (on the advice of ministers), as per s. 56; and per s. 57, the Governor General may refer a bill to the Queen, rather than grant it royal assent personally.

So it's really not that difficult.

I see no reason, Machjo, for high school students to be able to read the language of Royal Proclamations. The substance of the document should certainly be taught, but I think it would be a waste of resources to try to teach the language of it.

 

[eh1eh]

If for no other reason than to teach our children that they can't 'take the 5th' in Canada. They have no obligation to incriminate themselves, but it ain't the 5th amendment her in the 'Land of the Free'
Not only that. The right to bear arms does not protect the citizens from their government anymore. LOL at the right to bear arms. Meaningless. The easy access to guns has created the USA murder society and the people are still being totally raped of their freedom by the government.
I think we need to study our own constitution and make some reforms...
you know, to protect our actual freedoms.

 

[Colpy]

Maybe Canadians should be taught this stuff, but not by Colpy. The distinction he leaves out is no royal interference in the freedom to have arms as suitable to their conditions and "as allowed by law." In other words, if it's legislated firearms restrictions, then that's fine. Just as taxes must be legislated, and not decreed by the monarch. This part of the Bill of Rights also identifies this as a right of protestants.

You miss the point entirely.

Yes, as allowed by law.........which means reasonable restriction...........but the right is to possess arms "for their defense".....which sort of kills the "sporting use" argument, does it not? The right to keep arms has NOTHING to do with hunting.

Most importantly, read the preamble. The authors do not pretend to grant rights, nor do they pretend they have the ability to grant or deny rights........they simply recognize the ancient rights of free men.

Obviously, the possession of arms is not (as claimed by Canadian anti-gun people) merely a priviledge, but is indeed, a right

Obviously, it is a right to retain weapons designed for combat.
.
Obviously, current Canadian gun laws would not last a SECOND if held up to the standard of traditional constitutional law.

The idea of a citizen militia keeping barbarians at the gate this day and age is nothing short of amusingly reactionary.

Damned right.

That's why it must be retained.

Because the lefties among us are getting in the habit of deciding a lot of our rights (such as free speech) are "amusingly reactionary".

That's not our Bill of Rights. Our's came August 10 1960.

Jeeeesus!

LOL...too bad that's not our Bill of Rights.....

Aren't you the guy who claims to have studied history? Whose did you study?

Petros, go back to idiotic trolling without attempted reference to facts.........

Because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

English Common Law, including constitutional tradition and documents going back to the Magna Carta (1215) and before IS Canadian Law.

You are the one with no knowledge of history.

 

[TenPenny]

Colpy, you realize those rights only apply to Protestants, don't you?

You want to retain the right of Protestants only to hold arms?

 

[Colpy]

Colpy, you realize those rights only apply to Protestants, don't you?

You want to retain the right of Protestants only to hold arms?

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Well, I was raised Baptist, soooooo

Actually, all rights were extended to the Catholic population in (I believe) 1825.....except, of course, the throne.

 

[Machjo]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Well, I was raised Baptist, soooooo

Actually, all rights were extended to the Catholic population in (I believe) 1825.....except, of course, the throne.

And of course the exception applies to the highest position in the land. Minor detail.

All equal, but some are more equal than others in the higher positions, eh?

 

[Colpy]

And of course the exception applies to the highest position in the land. Minor detail.

All equal, but some are more equal than others in the higher positions, eh?

The Throne includes the title of Defender of the Faith........one can hardly believe a Catholic qualified to defend the Anglican faith.......

 

[TenPenny]

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Well, I was raised Baptist, soooooo

Actually, all rights were extended to the Catholic population in (I believe) 1825.....except, of course, the throne.

So, in reality, it's okay to modify these rights.

 

[Colpy]

So, in reality, it's okay to modify these rights.

The state has no power to modify these rights.....that is the point. They only recognized that the right should apply to Catholics as well......which is in no way a modification of the right itself......

 

[TenPenny]

The state has no power to modify these rights.....that is the point. They only recognized that the right should apply to Catholics as well......which is in no way a modification of the right itself......

Okay. So if they recognize that the right only applies to Protestants again, that's not a modification of the right in itself, either.

 

[Colpy]

Okay. So if they recognize that the right only applies to Protestants again, that's not a modification of the right in itself, either.

Hmmmm.......I see your point, but to me it is okay to expand basic rights....it is not ok to restrict them

In other words, the inclusion of Catholics was a recognition that they enjoyed the same rights as Protestants always, and had been wrongfully denied in practice.
..........

 

[Machjo]

The Throne includes the title of Defender of the Faith........one can hardly believe a Catholic qualified to defend the Anglican faith.......

Yet it's a secular throne reigning over non-Protestants. Hmmm...

That said, I also see some benefits in this. In the US, where the constitution clearly prohibits government intervention in matters of religion, the populace has become much more intolerant of differences at the grass roots, as can be seen with the protests against the Islamic Center in NYC for instance.

One advantage with having an established Church is that that way Anglicans at least, and perhaps other Christians too, are likely to feel more secure in the stability of their national faith, thus reducing the threat of American-style religious xenophobia in hard times.

So while I was poking fun at the head of state also being head of a particular established Church, with the impossibility of any other holding that position without converting, I do see some pragmatic benefits in this even if I don't profess the Christian Faith myself.