Republican, monarchist or what?

[FiveParadox]

I agree that we need to approach the monarchy in a moderate fashion. I don't think that it should be abolished, because of primarily Canadian heritage, and the failsafe device it provides for us. But I also think that we need to reform the system as it is, because Canadians are so dismally uninvolved in the workings of our current system.

 

[the caracal kid]

perhaps they are not involved because of things such as the monarchy?

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?

I agree that we need to approach the monarchy in a moderate fashion. I don't think that it should be abolished, because of primarily Canadian heritage, and the failsafe device it provides for us. But I also think that we need to reform the system as it is, because Canadians are so dismally uninvolved in the workings of our current system.

Well the fact that the UK has pretty much the same as us and has almost the same problems as us.

The Commons. FPTP
The House of Lords (Same us our senate) I know there's been a lot of reforming here for the past 500 years. I don't know where there at now but I know there deminishing the hereitary lords in the house.
Queen
PM

So besides a few differences in the name the UK and Canada are pretty much alike and face some of the same problems. As in the Commons has way too much power and the queen is merely a figure head with no real power she can use without getting in trouble.

I think with the UK one way around the problem with the Queen and the fact you can't elect the queen is make a posistion or a proxy for the queen which is elected. Keep the Queen but have a elected proxy. *shrugs* or give her power to veto for a time.

See the problem here is the power of the Queen and the house of Lords were taken away basically by Strong PM's in commons. From both the capitalist and Social democratic camps over the years. Basically with the problem of keeping a monarchy in place extead of switching over to a republican system people would not give the Queen or lords a manadate or at least a very weak one. If however you modernized these posistions slightly you could give them a mandate of sorts and they could have proper power in a constitutional monarchy without having to become a republic. Right now pretty much as the classical writers would say "the mods rule" the only thing keeping this from fuctionally from happening is FPTP so the "Mob" is not directly represented by how the mob truly feels. It's kind of complicated how these systems have been messed up.

So in a sence in the USA and in France you can see a republican system in work because there is no problem with Queens or Lords and the fact that in todays society people don't care what sheets you were born in so all lelvels of government mostly work right.

 

[FiveParadox]

perhaps they are not involved because of things such as the monarchy?

I disagree. I wouldn't think it would be possible, considering the almost non-existent media attention given to Governors General and Lieutenant Governors. Hell, a huge number of Canadians have no idea that the Governor General is the Head of State.

 

[FiveParadox]

I agree with you for the most part, Finder. If our Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governors, had valid mandates, and Canadians could see them exercising their executive power, from time to time, for the good of the people and to check the power of the Legislatures and the Houses of Parliament, then I think that Canadians could get really excited about having someone in that position, and they could become quite proud of the institution.

And let's keep in mind that the Monarchy itself, even without its proxy representation, still does hold executive power over Canada.

(56) Where the Governor General assents to a Bill in the Queen's Name, he shall by the first convenient Opportunity send an authentic Copy of the Act to One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council within Two Years after Receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such Disallowance (with a Certificate of the Secretary of State of the Day on which the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor General, by Speech or Message to each of the Houses of the Parliament or by Proclamation, shall annul the Act from and after the Day of such Signification.

Here, it is apparent that the Queen retains the right to annul any piece of legislation; of course, by convention, this has never been used, and would most likely only be considered in the most dire and exigent of circumstances. Think something along the lines of "Canadian petition to the Queen, protesting the abuse by the Government of its authority."

Again, the Monarchy still plays a role in Canadian politics. If not through the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors, then through the knowledge that our Government can still be told to "go to Hell," so to speak, if our Parliamentary institution is abused. I take comfort in the knowledge that this is true.

Note Edited to resolve formatting problems, and for typos.

 

[the caracal kid]

yes, the GG should have a mandate that involves upholding the charters as a safeguard against abuse of the PM.

As for the Queen..... we can file that in the historybooks where it belongs.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?

yes, the GG should have a mandate that involves upholding the charters as a safeguard against abuse of the PM.

As for the Queen..... we can file that in the historybooks where it belongs.

Sorry the Queen was more in referance to the UK then Canada, because in Canada we have the GG who is basically our proxy to the Queen. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And we do agree on that much that the GG should have a manadate by the provinces or the people. I like this line very much "upholding the charters as a safeguard against abuse of the PM".

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, the caracal kid, I guess we do in fact agree on something. :lol:

Nonetheless, on a side-note before I go to sleep, I'm surprised at the result of the poll thus far (I mean, as a monarchist I'm happy, but surprised nonetheless, lol). Granted, we're working with a miniscule sample here, but it's still reasurring on my end.

I think that the poll should probably have had an "in-between" option, though. The vast majority would probably have rather chosen something a little bit more in the centre on this debate. I think almost everyone who had contributed here has agreed that the Monarchy does have a place in some way or another, whether directly or by proxy, but that our electoral system could also use something in the direction of at least semi-Republican-style reform.

Happy holidays. Good night. I'm out.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?

Well, the caracal kid, I guess we do in fact agree on something. :lol:

Nonetheless, on a side-note before I go to sleep, I'm surprised at the result of the poll thus far (I mean, as a monarchist I'm happy, but surprised nonetheless, lol). Granted, we're working with a miniscule sample here, but it's still reasurring on my end.

I think that the poll should probably have had an "in-between" option, though. The vast majority would probably have rather chosen something a little bit more in the centre on this debate. I think almost everyone who had contributed here has agreed that the Monarchy does have a place in some way or another, whether directly or by proxy, but that our electoral system could also use something in the direction of at least semi-Republican-style reform.

Happy holidays. Good night. I'm out.

Happy Holidays back at ya. .........and g'nite. Catch ya later..

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?

Well, the caracal kid, I guess we do in fact agree on something. :lol:

Nonetheless, on a side-note before I go to sleep, I'm surprised at the result of the poll thus far (I mean, as a monarchist I'm happy, but surprised nonetheless, lol). Granted, we're working with a miniscule sample here, but it's still reasurring on my end.

I think that the poll should probably have had an "in-between" option, though. The vast majority would probably have rather chosen something a little bit more in the centre on this debate. I think almost everyone who had contributed here has agreed that the Monarchy does have a place in some way or another, whether directly or by proxy, but that our electoral system could also use something in the direction of at least semi-Republican-style reform.

Happy holidays. Good night. I'm out.

Yeah I thought about putting an in between section but then everyone would just chose that.

 

[Finder]

What would you consider yourself
Republican (Don't confuse this term with the Republican party of the USA)
25%
25% [ 3 ]
Monarchist
75%
75% [ 9 ]



Wow Can't believe there's that much difference. Well only 12 people have voted. Very low turn out.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?

I agree that we need to approach the monarchy in a moderate fashion. I don't think that it should be abolished, because of primarily Canadian heritage, and the failsafe device it provides for us. But I also think that we need to reform the system as it is, because Canadians are so dismally uninvolved in the workings of our current system.

There is nothing wrong in maintaining an interface between Queen and state in Canada. A similar argument can be used in maintaining our interface between church and state here within the US.

You folks in Canada are actually maintaining a relationship with the Church of England, given that the Queen is head of that Church.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Republican, monarchis

NJ...the queen is not the head of the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is.

The Queen is the defender of the faith....

 

[the caracal kid]

The US was built on the concept of separation of church and state. The founding fathers were Deists. It was not until the mid 1900's that under the guise of the communist enemy that the term "god" was inserted into your pledge and onto your money.

As for the queen, she is the representation of inequality and tyrany.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?

The US was built on the concept of separation of church and state. The founding fathers were Deists. It was not until the mid 1900's that under the guise of the communist enemy that the term "god" was inserted into your pledge and onto your money.

As for the queen, she is the representation of inequality and tyrany.

Not so, Kid. Our history has always had a strong connection between faith and government, way before the mid 1900's. Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation and this is clearly documented throughout our history. We should not be trying to undo our past.

God is in our pledge, our National Anthem, nearly every patriotic song, and in our founding documents. We honor His birth, death, and resurrection as holidays, and we turn to Him in prayer in times of crisis. Not to mention our attachment to The Ten Commandments. They are present both on the US Supreme Court main doors and behind the bench.

As for your comment on our national motto (On our currency), "In God We Trust", is not something which just came about around the mid-1900's. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Read for more details ...

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

In addition, "In God We Trust" is also engraved in stone in the House of Representatives in our Capitol.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Republican, monarchis

James, I already proved you wrong on this. Go back and read everything I put up before.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchis

NJ...the queen is not the head of the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is.

The Queen is the defender of the faith....

Not so, Dani. The Queen is indeed the head of the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is mearly a spiritual leader.

Read on ...

Queen's Role

Head of the Church of England

The Queen is Head of the Church of England - a position that all British monarchs have held since it was founded by Henry VIII in the 1530s.

The Queen appoints archbishops and bishops on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The spiritual leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Republican, monarchis

The lack of respect for the separation between church and state among the radical religious right reminds very much of radical Islam. Those who insist that the United States is a Christian country are no better and no different from the Taliban.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Republican, monarchis

The lack of respect for the separation between church and state among the radical religious right reminds very much of radical Islam. Those who insist that the United States is a Christian country are no better and no different from the Taliban.

We have every right to maintain our interface between Church and state Rev, just as you folks in Canada maintain your interface between Queen and state. If you support one over the other, you are clearly setting a double standard, or hypocritical preference.

What about all those folks in Canada who are not of British ancestry? Why should they pledge alegiance to the Queen? I'm sure many would rather pledge allegiance to God. Example, for many immigrants from say ... Ireland, the Queen means absolutely nothing.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Republican, monarchis

Ah, Mullah James speaks. The United States is not a Christian country. Your founding fathers said and wrote many things about that. I quoted some, by no means all, of those things in another thread and you had no real response to the quotes. You basically ignored the things your founding fathers said so you could continue attempting to force your peculiar religious beliefs on others, James.

Give it up. Anybody who has read the writing of your founding fathers knows that they did not intend the United States to be a Christian nation.