Re: UK royal sucession

Fri, 02 May 2008 05:22:19 +0100 from Don Aitken <don-
aitken@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:57:24 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thu, 01 May 2008 23:13:57 +0100 from Don Aitken <don-
aitken@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Although the question may arise whether the rule of succession is
constitutional in nature, and therefore requires a constitutional
amendment to change it. I think that the point is sufficiently obscure
that the Supreme Court of Canada, or the High Court of Australia,
might decide it either way.

What about section 41(a) of the Constitution Act 1982?

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

That specifies the procedure required for making such an amendment,
but does not specify what matters relating to "the office of the
Queen" require one.

I am not a lawyer, but to my layman's mind it seems rather obvious
that the rules for picking the next occupant do relate to the office.
How could they not?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Second Amendment confusion nearly total
    ... Amendment was to guarantee rights only for state ... federal constitution as interpreted by the U.S. ... The U.S. Supreme Court through ... that grants SCOTUS no power over the Constitution. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Welcome To Big Time Politics
    ... the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it ... 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms to the ... the best form of government is a benevolent despot. ... Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does". ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Second Amendment confusion nearly total
    ... States have no rights? ... Amendment was to guarantee rights only for state ... federal constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme ... The Supreme Court has not included the Second ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Second Amendment confusion nearly total
    ... States have no rights? ... Amendment was to guarantee rights only for state governments ... federal constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Second Amendment confusion nearly total
    ... States have no rights? ... Amendment was to guarantee rights only for state governments ... federal constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)