Roman History - ancient history

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Mr. Harper commented today, on CPAC, that he would not be able to govern quite as he would like, because the Senate of Canada would be controlled by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Liberal Senators). He also said that the Supreme Court would pose an obstacle, which makes me wonder what he's planning on doing for four years, lol.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

FiveParadox said:
Mr. Harper commented today, on CPAC, that he would not be able to govern quite as he would like, because the Senate of Canada would be controlled by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Liberal Senators). He also said that the Supreme Court would pose an obstacle, which makes me wonder what he's planning on doing for four years, lol.

This is exactaly why we need to have an elected senate!!
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I would disagree; this is exactly the kind of situation that our "Father of Confederation" were taking into consideration when they formulated the Senate (I am in favour of very moderate reform, as Finder knows, but would like to see the premise of our Senate remain the same).

The "memory" of the Senate is an extremely important feature of our system of governance; no matter what the whim of the people may be, during moments of rash judgement, the Senate remains a slowly evolving body, which must developing over time on the basis of long-term political opinion.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,783
586
113
66
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

jimmoyer said:
Why not introduce term limits ?

I dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

Colpy said:
jimmoyer said:
Why not introduce term limits ?

I dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?

I disagree. I think two term limits is fundimentally a republican value. It comes from the old "dictators" od the Roman republic and that of the consulship. Both were offices of high power, but both had term limits. The Dictoator often had a term of 6 months to about a year to which the "dictator" traditionally gave up the power at the end of the conflic even if his term had not finished. That of the Consulship was of one term, to which he could have a second only after he had left the posistion for a term. Where the republic started to have multiple terms were with the Tribunes of the Plebs.

Anyhow back onto the point this was done to dissuade tyrants and kings (as dictatorships were often short and only for crisis). American principals of government would therefor bring the same Farmer to ruler back to farmer aspect to dissuade possible tyrants. I totally support a two term limit.

Another reason they did this in rome was to pass around the privileges and commitments of puplic office. we see in Canada, and the USA that professional politicians have a hold on government. I'd love to see term limits on everything thus we could have more people drawn to puplic life. Less of these lifers spending 20-30 or more years as a politicians. They are so far removed from the common person.

I think both Canada and the USA should go back to our republican values in government and see the reason why we don't trust the "politicians"... which is mainly they are professional politicians and not the people.

Perhaps I'm being too much of a republican ideolog, but this type of thinking can work in a "Westminster" republican government, or the American Republican government.

Anyhow I'll stand by my orginal "grit" like statment that the founding fathers of the USA where a very enlightend bunch and really made a good piece of work in the American government. I think the only other republican government I can think of which could have done better if not for the Jakobins was the French Constiutional monarchy just after the revolutionary war. Had the King as head of state but with very limited stalling powers, with most of the powers in the hands of the Assembly, much like the Westminster module. But the king had the power to delay legislation for 4 years which lead to time to debate and for moods to change and fanatics to turn into moderates. *shrugs* Two of the best systems if you ask me.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
All these expressions of faith in the integrity of our existing system is making me nauseous. What has to happen before Canadians see the kind of mess we are in, reach third world status?

We have been slipping for 20 years, while the whole world races past us. We had it too good once. The fact that we still have it better than many does not mean we are not falling.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

iamcanadian said:
All these expressions of faith in the integrity of our existing system is making me nauseous. What has to happen before Canadians see the kind of mess we are in, reach third world status?

We have been slipping for 20 years, while the whole world races past us. We had it too good once. The fact that we still have it better than many does not mean we are not falling.

"iamcanadian" how did we ever have it so good? Is it possible you are looking at our history threw rose coloured classes? I think we've had a lot of progress in the last 200 years, and I think we are better off then we were even 10 years ago.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Granted, the system of governance in Canada is far from perfect; but with all due respect to the both of you, Finder and iamcanadian, Canada is not going to collapse as you seem to imply if the system is not completely overhauled. Yes, the system is flawed; each system is, in some way or another -- but the immediate fate of Canada does not rest on the doing-away with our Westminster Parliament.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

FiveParadox said:
Granted, the system of governance in Canada is far from perfect; but with all due respect to the both of you, Finder and iamcanadian, Canada is not going to collapse as you seem to imply if the system is not completely overhauled. Yes, the system is flawed; each system is, in some way or another -- but the immediate fate of Canada does not rest on the doing-away with our Westminster Parliament.

I doubt Canada will collasp. But the fact is our system of government won't stop a tyranical ruler. It also shuts out minorities. Lots of dictatorship ships of the magority in the form of democracy have lasted hundreds of years very well and I'm sure Canada will too. But as a Republican Social Democrat, I have to respect the right of the minority to be enfranchised in our system. I may not always agree with all minority groups point of view but I believe they have a right to be enfranchised in our system. Now you may not care that a portion of society has no or little representation, but by disenfrancising them is usually more dangourse then francisation of these cause as history has proven to us time and again..

Paradox, I sometimes give you worse cause, or not so good scenio's to demostraight the inequilities of our system and what can happen. Now with Harper I do not think he will turn out to be a facsist, but if he does you could lose everything you care about because of our system.

As I said in my other comments, I doubt this will happen, and I think Canada is working ok with our broken system because of the people who have been incharge have been mostly enlightened people who have not overly abused the system. That doesn't mean we can always trust in this.

In less then a week we have a possibility of being ruled by a minority, with a magority in government, who does not repect the minority, nor respects other minorities rights nor the magority of Canadians rights. Why will they be able to do this, because of our system. I'm not saying it's the end of Canada, but I'm just saying we can improve our system so we can prevent a few things.

1. absolute rule by the magority
2. Minority rule by magority government
3. disenfrachisment of minority groups.

I think those three things are immportant in Canada and in a democracy... They might be republican values but they are also values we have as well in our beliefs.

I see you are very pasionate about your beliefs as I am, and you will only learn once you have been disenfranchised by the system

(sh*t gotta jet)
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Canada is ruled by a MINORITY of the population.

The so called minorities are in sum total the vast majority and the Minority of the people that rule us make every effort to keep Canada fragmented into divided minorities that have not power or say.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

iamcanadian said:
Canada is ruled by a MINORITY of the population.

The so called minorities are in sum total the vast majority and the Minority of the people that rule us make every effort to keep Canada fragmented into divided minorities that have not power or say.

True the magority of Canada is made up of Minority groups, politically and ethnically now. This is why we have to have a system of government based on enfranchment of all groups and not winner take all.

Man we are way off topic here.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Maybe we passed each other over these thoughts without hitting.

The same people that have been rulling Canada for the last 100 years are rulling Canada today. This is the MINORITY I am referring to as the rulling minority.

The rest of the minority groups that came after them which are by the far the greater majority are kept out of the rulling class by being pigionholed into fragmented minority groups and a whole which they play with like foxes in the hen house.

The whole system works to maintain this.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

iamcanadian said:
Maybe we passed each other over these thoughts without hitting.

The same people that have been rulling Canada for the last 100 years are rulling Canada today. This is the MINORITY I am referring to as the rulling minority.

The rest of the minority groups that came after them which are by the far the greater majority are kept out of the rulling class by being pigionholed into fragmented minority groups and a whole which they play with like foxes in the hen house.

The whole system works to maintain this.


hmmm no I think even though we almost hit on the same points, you tend to put on that tin foil hat I often talk about when you go into your conspiracy theories. Though I think you are going over board you are right that we are governed by professional politicians instead of average citizens. I do wish we could change that. But I think that is a voting problem which has become apart of our culture here and the only way for that to change is threw education.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
65
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?
-------------------------------Colpy----------------

Well, I'll nibble away at your presumption because
by the end of FDR's 3rd term we had the disaster
of his private meetings with Uncle Joe Stalin,
ignoring the worries of Winston Churchill, BEFORE
culminating in the disastrous YALTA Conference
that set the stage for the IRON CURTAIN.

In the midst of a world war, a previous President
would no doubt assist a most willing succeeding
President because nothing unifies like an external
threat.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Roman History - ancient history

jimmoyer said:
dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?
-------------------------------Colpy----------------

Well, I'll nibble away at your presumption because
by the end of FDR's 3rd term we had the disaster
of his private meetings with Uncle Joe Stalin,
ignoring the worries of Winston Churchill, BEFORE
culminating in the disastrous YALTA Conference
that set the stage for the IRON CURTAIN.

In the midst of a world war, a previous President
would no doubt assist a most willing succeeding
President because nothing unifies like an external
threat.


So your against term limits?
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Term limits would not work in Canada; how could we possibly incorporate them into Canada?

The Liberals are elected to the House with a majority of seats; oh, but they've been in twice, already. Guess we have to give it to the Tories. Hm, defeated on the Speech from the Throne; what do you know?
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
65
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I am beginning to understand that the republic form
of government does have more of a problem with
incumbents not losing and that parliamentary systems
have less of a problem with that.

The very nature of an election in a parliamentary
system often assumes the party in power is in
trouble and so it will most likely lose seats.

In the republic form of government, elections
are not dependent on the lack of popularity.