Re: An Act to Amend the Act of Settlement (1701)

On Jun 9, 10:38 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 5:26 am, "wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx" <wm.ki...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 8, 4:24 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 8, 9:55 am, Joseph McMillan <mcmillan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 8, 8:33 am, CJ Buyers <susuha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 8, 9:15 pm, "wulfit" <wul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A commonsense solution would be to extend existing laws in the UK with
regard to non-discrimination, gender neutrality, same-sex recognition and so
on.  

Very simple. The laws in question exclude matters relating to the
succession because that is a matter for ALL the Commonwealth realms,
not just the UK.

Repetition doesn't make this true.  Each Commonwealth realm has the
right to change the succession rules according to its own
Constitutional processes, even if doing so would result in different
monarchs in different realms.

It is a fundamental tenet of British law that the Crown in Parliament
has absolute power to enact whatever it pleases, and no act of a prior
Parliament can limit this power.  This was the case before the
Westminster Parliament released the Commonwealth dominions from its
authority (e.g., section 2 of the Canada Act 1982, section 1 of the
Australia Act 1986, etc.).  Those UK acts limited the power of the
Westminster Parliament to legislate for the non-British dominions, but
didn't limit in any way its power to legislate for the UK.  And if
they had it wouldn't matter, because a later Parliament could always
override any such limitations.

In terms of one of the most important realms, the 1982 Canadian
constitution requires the unanimous approval of every single
legislature in that country. Including Quebec, which will not even
consider taking part in the approval process according to the
requirements of a constitution it has not passed into its own laws. So
the whole shabang falls flat there.

The complexity of amending the Canadian constitution may make it hard
to change the rules of succession to the Canadian throne.  It has
nothing to do with changing the succession to the British throne.

Similarly, there is nothing to prevent the New Zealand Parliament from
amending the provision of the New Zealand Constitution that succession
to the crown of New Zealand will be governed by the UK Act of
Settlement 1701.  But the British Parliament can no longer amend that
act with respect to the New Zealand crown, since by section 15 (2) of
the NZ Constitution, "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend to New Zealand
as part of its law."

The notion that the British succession can only be changed by
unanimous action of all Queen Elizabeth II's dominions is a canard.

Joseph McMillan

Precisely.
All of what you have stated is ever so well known, especially by those
immersed in thearcanaof monarchy. But it is not just that one
parliament cannot bind another. More fundamentally, the posited
statutory requirement for unanimity with regard to changes to the
"succession" simply does not exist! i.e. the relevant statement in the
1931 Act of Westminister is in the preamble, which does not have the
force of law. It is nothing but 1930s wishful thinking and has
absolutely no binding effect.
That being so, why does CJB keep peddling this particular line of tosh
over and over? I think it is because he does not want any change, and
he is prepared to use specious arguments to that end, which is rather
sad really.

Regards,
  The Chief- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How come nobody every speaks of people being immersed in thearcanaof
republicanism?

Because republicanism is about openness and equality, the opposite of
arcane.

Regards,
  The Chief

nice theory. You don't know much about the reality. Go live in the
States and see who is equal and how much openess there is in
government.

The filthy rich get bonuses for ripping off the poor and the common
folk lose their houses and jobs and get nothing.
And the back room deals and relationships that are hidden, such as
the ones between the Petrol industry and the goverment agents who
didn't do their jobs .......and now pelicans are drinking oil in the
Gulf...

Please , don't give this us crap about how wonderful republics are.
They are no better than any other form of goverment and only as good
as the people that make up the society.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An Act to Amend the Act of Settlement (1701)
    ... succession because that is a matter for ALL the Commonwealth realms, ... Parliament can limit this power. ... Australia Act 1986, etc.). ... requirements of a constitution it has not passed into its own laws. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: An Act to Amend the Act of Settlement (1701)
    ... succession because that is a matter for ALL the Commonwealth realms, ... It is a fundamental tenet of British law that the Crown in Parliament ... Australia Act 1986, etc.). ... requirements of a constitution it has not passed into its own laws. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: An Act to Amend the Act of Settlement (1701)
    ... succession because that is a matter for ALL the Commonwealth realms, ... Parliament can limit this power. ... Australia Act 1986, etc.). ... requirements of a constitution it has not passed into its own laws. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: An Act to Amend the Act of Settlement (1701)
    ... succession because that is a matter for ALL the Commonwealth realms, ... Parliament can limit this power. ... or even in any other Commonwealth realm with a written constitution, ... Australia Act 1986, etc.). ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: An Act to Amend the Act of Settlement (1701)
    ... succession because that is a matter for ALL the Commonwealth realms, ... Parliament can limit this power. ... Australia Act 1986, etc.). ... requirements of a constitution it has not passed into its own laws. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)