Mustang1, you are bad at arguing and bad at writing. You've been conducting yourself in a truly awful way, constantly insulting and belittling others, and making all sorts of chauvinistic personal attacks. I don't really have an interest in debating this issue any more with you, because you are clearly living in your own little world where logic can be constantly bent to serve your needs as circumstances dictate.
Here are my final responses:
Quote:
If we move to actual political parallels (from property rights, unborn rights, Meech or Charlottetown or even Robinson's failed attempt to alter the Charter's preamble) then which are events that impact Canada and are significantly important, socially, economically or politically, then the picture becomes clear that mega-constitutional amendments on par (and some don't even meet the enormity) with removing the constitutional-monarchy aren't generally successful nor are resolved quickly.
And while you're sullying Canadian history, why not explain the amending process for changing the monarchy? Hint...it's quite encompassing and you failed to address it in your thinly veiled attempt to stack the deck.
You read the Wikipedia page on amending the Canadian constitution, I see. That's the only reason why you would mention Svend Robinson's "attempt" to amend it, which would not be noted on any legitimate research site, so inconsequential was the effort.
I think it's very possible that the politicians will screw up a constitutional amendment to abolish the monarchy, and make the issue far more complex than it needs to be. But I do believe that it is equally possible for the matter to be resolved quickly and easily. Maybe I am just insane, but I can absolutely imagine the passage of ten referendums in ten provinces,
providing the question was a simple "monarchy, yes or no" type thing. Obviously not all ten referendums would pass by 90% margins, but I can still easily imagine all ten passing. The polls are very much on the anti-monarchy side.
Quote:
So have i and i gave 2 simple ones already and i also am curious why you consistently dodge the challenge of giving some concrete examples from the last 1/2 century where the constitutional monarch has egregiously overstepped her constitutionally mandated bounds thus forcing a mega-constitutional showdown.
I believe this is what we call a "straw man" argument. I don't recall ever making the point that the monarchy was bad because it did evil, aggressive things and destabilized the Canadian political system. In fact, I made precisely the opposite point:
the monarchy does not do anything, and the fact that it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and promises to do, is one of its major flaws as an institution. The monarchy does not unify the country, protect democracy, or serve as a check on executive power, despite promising to do all of these things. It is also serves as a symbol of many negative values Canadians do not want associated with their country, such as colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Quote:
Really? He got dealt with rather easily as he failed to concede the fact that these simple incidents (quite obvious ones, really) were clear cases where the constitutional monarch did indeed carry out her duties and not only that, he didn't even address it in its proper context.
This is a very very stupid point. By your logic, every single time a bill is signed into law in Canada it is proof that the monarchy "works" because a very superficial Crown "duty" is being carried out. The monarchy's usefulness is thus automatically presumed so long as the Crown is able to perform some random gesture somewhere in the constitutional process. The monarchy would still "work" and your entire line of reasoning would still be valid even if the "Crown" was some bed-ridden Irish Settler who simply had to glance in the direction of a bill before it became legally binding. At some point in a democratic society the people have a right to stand up and say "I don't like this way of doing things anymore."
I'm finished.
CKA Super Elite 
