# Dennis' personal constitutional challenge, split from Re: Segregation Pre-Unification



## Dennis Ruhl (23 Apr 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The OP stated he believed there was an official policy. Neither he nor you have yet provided such a document.




I'm still looking for the document authorizing Canada to have a Prime minister.  When I find them, I'll let you know.


----------



## armyvern (23 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I'm still looking for the document authorizing Canada to have a Prime minister.  When I find them, I'll let you know.



You, sir, are in a league of your own.

Just shoot me already.  :

The British North America Act, 1867.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (23 Apr 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You, sir, are in a league of your own.
> 
> Just shoot me already.  :
> 
> The British North America Act, 1867.



Not a word mentioned of a priime minister yet we have one.  I remember back to a friend I had about 40 years ago.  He was from Nairobi and we would discuss the British Empire and its demise.  One of his favorite expressions in these discussions was F--- You White Man.  Just as he didn't share the same opinion of the generosity of the Empire with me, perhaps the Black people of Canada didn't fully appreciate the largesse of the Canadian military in WWI.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Not a word mentioned of a priime minister yet we have one.  I remember back to a friend I had about 40 years ago.  He was from Nairobi and we would discuss the British Empire and its demise.  One of his favorite expressions in these discussions was F--- You White Man.  Just as he didn't share the same opinion of the generosity of the Empire with me, perhaps the Black people of Canada didn't fully appreciate the largesse of the Canadian military in WWI.



Dennis, once again you have shown your propensity to twist any thread you join into an opportunity to push your own narrow-minded political agenda.  You can cease posting in this thread unless you have a direct answer to the questions that have been posed.

Consider this your one warning.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Not a word mentioned of a priime minister yet we have one.  I remember back to a friend I had about 40 years ago.  He was from Nairobi and we would discuss the British Empire and its demise.  One of his favorite expressions in these discussions was F--- You White Man.  Just as he didn't share the same opinion of the generosity of the Empire with me, perhaps the Black people of Canada didn't fully appreciate the largesse of the Canadian military in WWI.



Your extrapolation of people's thoughts, from a century ago, is either truly clairvoyant and miraculous or totally considerate on your complete lack of cognisant thought and the utter ramblings of a madman. Your friend from Nairobi and his obvious lack of where his people are because of civilisation are completely immaterial to the condusivness of the thread. 

You stepped on your dick, in your attempt to show yourself morally superior to the rest of the members here, and the longer you try to explain your inane rambling only makes you look all the more ridiculous.

Swallow your pride, take your lumps, admit you made some stupid statements (or just quit trying to defend the indefensible) and we can all move on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Not a word mentioned of a priime minister yet we have one.  I remember back to a friend I had about 40 years ago.  He was from Nairobi and we would discuss the British Empire and its demise.  One of his favorite expressions in these discussions was F--- You White Man.  Just as he didn't share the same opinion of the generosity of the Empire with me, perhaps the Black people of Canada didn't fully appreciate the largesse of the Canadian military in WWI.




This bit should do:

_"Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom"_ 
THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. (U.K.) (Consolidated with amendments)
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith

The term "Prime Minister" evolved over the centuries, primarily beginning with Walpole, although he did not use the title himself. It appears, officially, when Disraeli was in office, but, according to what I have found - quick search - does not make it into the _Gazette_ until early in the 20th century.

Mr. Ruhl: the really important parts of our, Canadian, constitution are found in the British Constitution, which is unwritten. The written bits, while interesting, don't really amount to very much; they are, largely, machinery of government _administrivia_.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2011)

Following on that, Section 18 of The Constitution Act, 1867 (the British North America Act, 1867) states:


> 18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the Members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the Members thereof.



This models our parliament of of that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which happens to have a Prime Minister.


The same is reflected in the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875:



> 1. Section eighteen of the Constitution Act, is hereby repealed, without prejudice to Anything done under that section, and the following section shall be substituted for the section so repealed.
> 
> "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held. enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof."




The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the model that we have adopted.  Looking at the British model we see that the Prime Minister (Office, Role and Functions) Bill (Bill 60) lays out the role and duties of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


----------



## armyvern (23 Apr 2011)

BNA, 1867.



> The Constitution Act, 1867
> (THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867)
> 
> 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.
> ...


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (24 Apr 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the model that we have adopted.  Looking at the British model we see that the Prime Minister (Office, Role and Functions) Bill (Bill 60) lays out the role and duties of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.



Considering that that the UK bill cited  passed in 2001, some 19 years post repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, I hardly think it has much meaning in the strictly semantic (and ultimately pointless) argument that it is going here.

Yes, we have a PM based on British parliamentary tradition but Bill 60 above has nothing to do with it.


----------



## brihard (24 Apr 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Considering that that that UK bill was passed in 2001, some 19 years post repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, I hardly think it has much meaning in the strictly semantic (and ultimately pointless) argument that it is going here.
> 
> Yes, we have a PM based on British parliamentary tradition but Bill 60 above has nothing to do with it.



Indeed. Such laws as were formally received from Britain came in at essentially a 'frozen' state at the time we received them, and at such time as we established our own statutory authority for all legal matters- in sum, no British law can be held to have any greater than persuasive influence post 1982, and, in practice, somewhat earlier than that.

That said, any debate on the provenance of our constitutional law, and its English heritage, must pay proper regard to the critical role of convention in our legal history.  No purely statutory approach to our system of government can be held to be well informed if it ignores the rules of convention that provide the nuance to the purely statutory structure providing the framework of our government.  The relationship between Parliament, PM, and the viceregal are as much - if not more - delineated by convention as they are written law. This is of much greater than merely persuasive influence; it's the 'common law' by which that described by statute actually functions.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Considering that that the UK bill cited  passed in 2001, some 19 years post repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, I hardly think it has much meaning in the strictly semantic (and ultimately pointless) argument that it is going here.
> 
> Yes, we have a PM based on British parliamentary tradition but Bill 60 above has nothing to do with it.



Following your logic our own The Constitution Act has no relevance either, as it to has been passed over and over again several times after the original.  The last dated was 1999.  Some of these Acts are meer formalities or ammendments to update previous provisions of the Acts or practices.  These Acts are not written in stone, but are living documents, and will constantly change with the times.

British North America Act, 1867
 British North America Act, 1916
British North America Act, 1943
British North America Act, 1946
 British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949
British North America Act, 1951
British North America Act, 1952


Constitution Act, 1871
Constitution Act, 1886
 Constitution Act, 1907
 Constitution Act, 1915
Constitution Act, 1930
Constitution Act, 1940
Constitution Act, 1960
Constitution Act, 1964
Constitution Act, 1965
Constitution Act, 1974
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
Constitution Act, 1982
Constitution Act, 1985 
Constitution Act, 1999


----------

