• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The slow decline of Federation?

Certainly not fraud. As a very (very) general statement, somebody must be deprived of something that is capable of being stolen. The defence would no doubt argue a colour or right, legitimacy (being elected by a plurality of voters) and good faith. There are a lot of parliamentary protections and immunity that might come into play as well.

Unless some group takes it on as a cause, I expect this to be completely forgotten very soon.
They have deprived tax payers of money they aren’t legally entitled to. The defence of legitimacy has no bearing as part of the requirement for that defence would be having to swear a oath to the king. Winning the vote is one part of being elected, failing to complete the second part removes that legitimacy. Parliamentary protections and immunity would not apply as they legally cannot hold office until they swear that oath.

This isn’t even a monarchist or non-monarchist thing, it is a matter of our constitution is very clear as to the requirements to sit in office and they refuse to follow those requirements. The province cannot unilaterally amend the constitution. If they get everyone on board to amend and remove that portion thats one thing, but this unilateral nonsense needs to stop.
 
They have deprived tax payers of money they aren’t legally entitled to. The defence of legitimacy has no bearing as part of the requirement for that defence would be having to swear a oath to the king. Winning the vote is one part of being elected, failing to complete the second part removes that legitimacy. Parliamentary protections and immunity would not apply as they legally cannot hold office until they swear that oath.

This isn’t even a monarchist or non-monarchist thing, it is a matter of our constitution is very clear as to the requirements to sit in office and they refuse to follow those requirements. The province cannot unilaterally amend the constitution. If they get everyone on board to amend and remove that portion thats one thing, but this unilateral nonsense needs to stop.
Actually a province can if a matter relates to only them (or a group of them, but not all). Newfoundland and, I believe, Quebec did regarding schools. In this case, the way I read it, they haven't done it properly. It's all laid out in the Constitution Act for your reading pleasure.

As for the rest, you seem to have it all figured out - but your opinion has the same value as mine, which t'ain't much.
 
Back
Top