[DrCaleb]

DanSC wrote:

I think what Pseudo asked was does the 1982 Constitution replace or merely amened the 1867 Constitution?

It's an amendment.

JJ wrote:

There is a thing called the Constitution Act, 1867. Look it up. I can't argue with you if you lack even the most basic understanding of Canadian constitutional law.

I understand the most basic, and many medium and even some intermediate parts of the Canadian Constitution.

So, what were we arguing about? Whether Canada was a former British colony or not? No, that's right, whether or not the 'Queen of England' is enshrined as our monarch in the Constitution.

Well, as Brock points out, since no such title exists; and as I point out, no she isn't - I guess we are done here?

[Mr_Canada]

This whole thing is about as important and significant to me as Britney Spears getting married.

It's just silly people in silly clothing with silly ceremonies for a silly dynasty.

[Regina]

I thought Pippa was smokin' HOT!

[Psudo]

DrCaleb wrote:

The term is "pluralis majestatis" and I think it goes back to Babylonian times. I know it's in Black's Law dictionary somewhere, but that isn't online.
[...]
That was the 1867 Constitution. We amended it in 1982.

So an abstract legal term from Babylonian times that is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Canadian constitution overrides language explicitly included the Constitution in 1867 and not explicitly overridden since?

That makes no sense.

Also, Wikipedia says "pluralis majestatis" refers to the royal "we," wherein royalty, having divine right of kings on their side, speaks for himself and God. Google didn't return another definition from any other source. Your argument lacks even the ring of truth derived from having your facts straight.

[DrCaleb]

Psudo wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

The term is "pluralis majestatis" and I think it goes back to Babylonian times. I know it's in Black's Law dictionary somewhere, but that isn't online.
[...]
That was the 1867 Constitution. We amended it in 1982.

So an abstract legal term from Babylonian times that is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Canadian constitution overrides language explicitly included the Constitution in 1867 and not explicitly overridden since?

That makes no sense.

Was it the big words that made no sense?

Like above, with JJ accusing me of not knowing the basics about constitutional law, perhaps we need to start at the beginning.

Law builds on itself.

Pluralis Majestatis was written about by ancient Greeks and Romans! It's a very old concept. Some concepts in law are thought to be too generic to be enumerated. Like killing. There is no law that says it's wrong to kill a person, that is assumed. The law is about what punishment a person may be subjected to if they kill.

The Magna Carta plays a large part in the forming of our Constitution, but it is also not explicitly stated either. Natural Law plays a large part in Constitutional Law. Not everything in Law is written, some things are assumed.

Psudo wrote:

Also, Wikipedia says "pluralis majestatis" refers to the royal "we," wherein royalty, having divine right of kings on their side, speaks for himself and God. Google didn't return another definition from any other source. Your argument lacks even the ring of truth derived from having your facts straight.

Oh! I'm a liar! Second fastest way to lose an argument.

Back in early days, rulers were thought to govern because they had been given the right to govern through powers and rights given by an unseen deity. They represented that deity, and therefore were more than one person. Ask yourself, if the Pope refers to himself as 'We', is he not speaking on the idea that he represents more than one person?

As linked to earlier in this thread, Australia has in court, said that The Queen of Austrailia and the Queen of Canada are two different people. There are also other sources, Example: Multiple nationality and international law By Alfred Michael Boll

Even the Queens' own website:

Quote:

In all these duties, The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommo ... anada.aspx

Because you don't grasp a concept, or that concept is not spelt out for you and made easily accessible on Google does not mean it's invalid. Nor does it merit calling anyone a liar.

[Psudo]

DrCaleb wrote:

Law builds on itself.

Except when explicitly overridden. The reference to the "Crown of the United Kingdom" from the 1867 Constitution is explicit. Where is the explicit mention of the Crown of Canada or denouncement of the Crown of the United Kingdom to override that?

DrCaleb wrote:

Some concepts in law are thought to be too generic to be enumerated. Like killing. There is no law that says it's wrong to kill a person, that is assumed.

The US and Canadian Criminal Codes both explicitly define murder as a crime. Law is very rarely unwritten, and when it is it is based in common law (not natural law, which is not typically given weight not in the courts but in legislative debates).

DrCaleb wrote:

Ask yourself, if the Pope refers to himself as 'We', is he not speaking on the idea that he represents more than one person?

Himself and God, or perhaps himself and his followers, yes. Not multiple instances of himself.

DrCaleb wrote:

Pluralis Majestatis was written about by ancient Greeks and Romans! It's a very old concept.

Do you read your own sources? That document is talking about the grammar of the royal "we," not the legal doctrine of multiple people in the same royal body. It defends my definition of Pluralis Majestatis, not yours.

DrCaleb wrote:

As linked to earlier in this thread, Australia has in court, said that The Queen of Austrailia and the Queen of Canada are two different people.

When I said I don't know Canadian law, this is the sort of thing I meant. In US law, the rulings of foreign nations' courts have little if any impact on our domestic law. (In the few, rare cases when international law is cited in American courts, an angry retort of "Activist Judges!" arises from the populace.) However, we lack the kind of international interconnectedness of the Commonwealth nations. Does Canada have some official recognition of Australian rulings as binding domestically within Canada? If it does, you may have a point about Canadian law at the cost of some sovereignty.

DrCaleb wrote:

There are also other sources, Example: Multiple nationality and international law By Alfred Michael Boll

Multiple nationalities, not multiple persons. Even US law recognizes dual citizenship.

Also, the author talks about the issue being unclear and talks of "distinctive juristic beings" as one side's argument in a continuing debate. That can only conflict with your confidence in the "two persons" philosophy.

DrCaleb wrote:

Even the Queens' own website:

Quote:

In all these duties, The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctive from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms.

Multiple roles, not multiple persons. This quote does not conflict with my view. Roles fits nicely with the other options I originally listed as preferable to persons: offices, crowns, or thrones.

DrCaleb wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Your argument lacks even the ring of truth derived from having your facts straight.

Oh! I'm a liar! Second fastest way to lose an argument.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying you don't have your facts straight. Lying would require an intent on your part to deceive. I believe you lack that intent. You are honestly and unintentionally wrong.