Re: Canada's Constitutional Queen
- From: cj559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Claude Latremouille)
- Date: 4 Aug 2005 13:11:26 GMT
Stephen Jenuth (jenuths@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> Stephen Jenuth wrote:
>
>> michael r james wrote:
>>
>>> (3) Section 2, repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57
>>> Vict., c. 14 (U.K.), read as follows:
>>>
>>> 2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen
>>> extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens
>>> of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "
>>>
>>> Since these acts refer to those successors who are 'kings' one might
>>> have a clue they would infer 'his majesty' as well if such were the case
>>> that we had a male sovereign.
>>>
>>> Now I would suggest that all those who cannot understand that, send a
>>> bottle of 'whiteout' with a note to the Prime Minister requesting him to
>>> change everycopy of the BNA act and the Constitution act that exist
>>> since you can't understand simple concepts of the language. Im sure he
>>> will reply to your requests with gratitude and some suggestions of his
>>> own.
>>
>> Back in the 1880s, government was getting a bit more complicated. And the
>> whiteout solution did not seem like a good idea.
>>
>> Instead, the Interpretation Act, 1889 was passed. The current
>> Interpretation Act, 1978 has the following provision:
>>
>> 10. In any Act a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the
>> passing of the Act is to be construed, unless the contrary intention
>> appears, as a reference to the Sovereign for the time being.
>>
>> My betting is that the 1889 one has something similar in it. And thus,
>> when cleaning up their statutes, the British Parliament removed the
>> superfluous provision from the BNA Act in 1893.
>>
>
> And finally having found a copy of the Interpretation Act, 1889, I turned
> out to be right. Here is section 30.
>
> References to the Crown.
>
> 30. In this Act and in every other Act, whether passed before or after the
> commencement of this Act, references to the Sovereign reigning at the time
> of the passing of the Act or to the Crown shall, unless the contrary
> intention appears, be construed as references to the Sovereign for the time
> being, and this Act shall be binding on the Crown.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Stephen Jenuth
> (jenuths@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
*
Thanks. Now, all we have to worry about is whether the UK
Parliament, when enacting Section 9. of the then BNA Act, 1867,
REALLY intended it to refer only to Queen Victoria. The contrary
intention appeared, of course, in Section 2. of said Act. But
said Section was repealed, so one is left with this last doubt
about the omission of the expression "Heirs and Successors" in
the Interpretation Act, 1889 (U.K.).
*
Have a nice day, ye all!
*
--
*** cj559@xxxxxx ** cj559@xxxxxx ***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
- References:
- Re: Canada's Constitutional Queen
- From: Stephen Jenuth
- Re: Canada's Constitutional Queen
- Prev by Date: Re: Canada's Constitutional Queen
- Next by Date: Eristavi-Tchicherine
- Previous by thread: Re: Canada's Constitutional Queen
- Next by thread: Arab Symbols of Royalty
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|