Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix
Why? Does it really cost us much to scratch out the word "Crown" and replace it with "State"? They're both five letter words and are used in the exact same context. Example:
"Subject to the authority of the Crown..."
"Subject to the authority of the State..."
|
It takes time, and time is money. All 11 legislatures would have to change all their laws to reflect it, unless they passed some sort of law that defined crown as being state. I'm not sure if that is possible but it would be preferable.
I imagine that parliamentarians with agendas would want to see other amendments to some bills, that could drag the process on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325
I don't think that's completely correct. South Africa's President is very much like a prime minister, and has no one above him.
|
He is like Barack Obama, head of government and head of state. He is appointed by Parliament. I guess it is similar to what we've discussed. I'm not familiar with South Africa's government structure but it might be an option for us, they're also a former realm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325
I don't think there are other provinces with written constitutions
|
Section V of Constitution Act 1867 sort of functions as a constitution for the four original provinces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325
The aboriginal treaty rights, negotiated with the federal government and the provinces would need modifications.
|
Those are between Aboriginals and the Crown, with the Federal Government taking the crown's responsibilities. Many aboriginal leaders view it as an agreement between them and the Queen herself, so there will obviously be significant issues regarding the treaties if we become a republic. There will probably be many aboriginal leaders asking for new treaties so that they could get a better deal as well. As I've pointed out before, many aboriginals are turning to law as a profession specifically to argue for their people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325
This isn't even close to a simple thing....and that's assuming that everyone agrees.
|
1,005 parliamentarians in 11 houses—1,110 in 12 chambers in 11 houses if the senate is involved—within three years of the first vote in the first house.
Unless the "7 of 10 provinces representing half the population" rule applies here, in which case it would be easier. But I am pretty sure this kind of change requires unanimous consent in all 11 parliaments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxiK
Balance to what power? If a judge is appointed, the LG doesn't stop it. He just says: OK.
|
But he
can stop it, if necessary. That's the balance. They're called "reserve powers" and they're the fail safe that prevents our politicians from abusing their power.
We have a situation where the monarch holds the power but doesn't use it, while the prime minister uses the power but doesn't hold it. This must be preserved, and you can't do that if you abolish the individual who holds but doesn't use the power.