🚀 go-pugleaf

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states: "The Executive
> Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to
> continue and be vested in the Queen".
> 
> What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after the reign of
> Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?
> 
In that period section 9 was amended to read King vice Queen.

Carter

Carter wrote:
> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> > Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states:
> > "The Executive Government and Authority of and over
> > Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested
> > in the Queen".
> >
> > What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after
> > the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of
> > Queen Elizabeth II?
> >
> In that period section 9 was amended to read King vice Queen.

The endnotes at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html
do not show any record of such an amendment to say "King"
instead of "Queen" for Section 9.

Are amendments made for the Governor General? The Governor
General, in the Constitution Act, 1867 and in the Letters
Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada,
is referred to only in the male gender by the use of words
such as "he", "his", "him", and "himself".

In article <WOGdnWbdAfLct3PfRVn-vw@rogers.com>,
Carter  <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
>dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
>> Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states: "The Executive
>> Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to
>> continue and be vested in the Queen".
>> 
>> What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after the reign of
>> Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?
>> 
>In that period section 9 was amended to read King vice Queen.
>
>Carter

And let us never have a change in the constitution on that note.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca	Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell.

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states: "The Executive
> Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to
> continue and be vested in the Queen".
>
> What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after the reign of
> Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?

Wasn't the Canadian constitution an act of the British Parliament? So
it would be covered by whatever statute the British Parliament enacted
in order to change laws applicable in the UK from queen to king.

G

gvellenzer@gmail.com wrote:
> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> > Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states:
> > "The Executive Government and Authority of and over
> > Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested
> > in the Queen".
> >
> > What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after
> > the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of
> > Queen Elizabeth II?
>
> Wasn't the Canadian constitution an act of the British
> Parliament? So it would be covered by whatever statute
> the British Parliament enacted in order to change laws
> applicable in the UK from queen to king.

Section 2 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 was repealed by
the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.).

Before 1893, Section 2 stated:
"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."

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:

> Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states: "The Executive
> Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to
> continue and be vested in the Queen".
> 
> What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after the reign of
> Queen Victoria and before the reign of Queen Elizabeth II?

The answers are as follows:

Edward VII, 1901 - 10
George V, 1910 - 36
Edward VIII (325 days), 1936
George VI, 1936 - 52
Elizabeth II, 1952 -

You may ask how these males could be the Queen.  The answer is something
which was thought of a long time ago.

Section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (way back when it was called the BNA
Act) 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."

Of course, someone will likely point of that this provision was repealed by
the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893.  Does that mean that the Act only
applied to Queen Victoria, and that the provisions did not apply to her
Heirs and Successors.  Are the people who make the laws that stupid that
they would forget to make some provision in Canada's constitution.

The simple answer is no.  The provision was repealed in 1893 as a result of
the passage of the Interpretation Act 1889 in 1889.  This contained a
provision very similar to the following which is still contained in the
Interpretation Act 1978 and which reads:

"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."

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this old law is found online.  Its
probably due to Al Gore not inventing the internet back in the 1880s.

Pretty simple, eh.  Rather than having a provision in every law which
covered the situation, the British Parliament passed a law which covered
all British laws.  Then, they embarked on a process of cleaning up the old
laws to remove superfluous provisions.

-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:

> 
> Carter wrote:
>> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
>> > Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states:
>> > "The Executive Government and Authority of and over
>> > Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested
>> > in the Queen".
>> >
>> > What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after
>> > the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of
>> > Queen Elizabeth II?
>> >
>> In that period section 9 was amended to read King vice Queen.
> 
> The endnotes at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html
> do not show any record of such an amendment to say "King"
> instead of "Queen" for Section 9.

You are right.  There was never any such amendment.  It was covered in the
Interpretation Act, 1889.

> Are amendments made for the Governor General? The Governor
> General, in the Constitution Act, 1867 and in the Letters
> Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada,
> is referred to only in the male gender by the use of words
> such as "he", "his", "him", and "himself".

Canada's current interpretation act has the following provision.

33. (1) Words importing female persons include male persons and corporations
and words importing male persons include female persons and corporations.

So, no, the letters patent which constitute the office of Governor General
does not need to change when the occupant of the office is female.

One source of the letters patent constituting the officer of Governor
General can by found here: 
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/LettersPatent.html



-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:

> 
> gvellenzer@gmail.com wrote:
>> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
>> > Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states:
>> > "The Executive Government and Authority of and over
>> > Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested
>> > in the Queen".
>> >
>> > What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after
>> > the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of
>> > Queen Elizabeth II?
>>
>> Wasn't the Canadian constitution an act of the British
>> Parliament? So it would be covered by whatever statute
>> the British Parliament enacted in order to change laws
>> applicable in the UK from queen to king.
> 
> Section 2 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 was repealed by
> the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.).
> 
> Before 1893, Section 2 stated:
> "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."

But only after the Interpretation Act, 1889 came into force.  This covered
the situation for all statutes, including the Constitution Act, 1867
(formerly the BNA Act, 1867).

Currently, it would be covered by the Interpretation Act, 1978 which is
available online if you look really hard.

-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

In alt.talk.royalty dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
: 
: gvellenzer@gmail.com wrote:
:> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
:> > Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states:
:> > "The Executive Government and Authority of and over
:> > Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested
:> > in the Queen".
:> >
:> > What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after
:> > the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of
:> > Queen Elizabeth II?
:>
:> Wasn't the Canadian constitution an act of the British
:> Parliament? So it would be covered by whatever statute
:> the British Parliament enacted in order to change laws
:> applicable in the UK from queen to king.
: 
: Section 2 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 was repealed by
: the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.).
: 
: Before 1893, Section 2 stated:
: "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."

Note of course that "Constitution Act,1867" is a strictly
post-1982 name for the British North America Act of 1867
and is found nowhere in that Act or pre-1982 discussion
thereof or amendments thereto.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Stephen Jenuth wrote:
> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Carter wrote:
> >> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> >> > Section 9 of Canada's Constitution Act, 1867 states:
> >> > "The Executive Government and Authority of and over
> >> > Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested
> >> > in the Queen".
> >> >
> >> > What was the name of Canada's Section 9 "Queen" after
> >> > the reign of Queen Victoria and before the reign of
> >> > Queen Elizabeth II?
> >> >
> >> In that period section 9 was amended to read King vice Queen.
> >
> > The endnotes at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html
> > do not show any record of such an amendment to say "King"
> > instead of "Queen" for Section 9.
>
> You are right.  There was never any such amendment.  It was
> covered in the Interpretation Act, 1889.

Can you provide the text of the Interpretation Act, 1889?

> > Are amendments made for the Governor General? The Governor
> > General, in the Constitution Act, 1867 and in the Letters
> > Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada,
> > is referred to only in the male gender by the use of words
> > such as "he", "his", "him", and "himself".
>
> Canada's current interpretation act has the following provision.
>
> 33. (1) Words importing female persons include male persons and
> corporations and words importing male persons include female
> persons and corporations.
>
> So, no, the letters patent which constitute the office of
> Governor General does not need to change when the occupant
> of the office is female.
[trimmed]

Do you claim that "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act, 1867
has referred to a male?

For example, Section 14 states:
"It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit,
to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time to appoint
any Person or any Persons jointly or severally to be his
Deputy or Deputies within any Part or Parts of Canada, and
in that Capacity to exercise during the Pleasure of the Governor
General such of the Powers, Authorities, and Functions of the
Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or
expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any Limitations
or Directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the
Appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect
the Exercise by the Governor General himself of any Power,
Authority, or Function."

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
>
> Do you claim that "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act, 1867
> has referred to a male?
>
YES!  Right!  You've got it!  For the 50+ years between the death of
Victoria and the accession of Elizabeth II, "Her Majesty" in the
Constitution Act, 1867, referred to a male.  That's what everyone in
this discussion has been trying to tell you for the last three days.

Joseph McMillan

Joseph McMillan wrote:
> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> >
> > Do you claim that "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act,
> > 1867 has referred to a male?
> >
> YES!  Right!  You've got it!  For the 50+ years between
> the death of Victoria and the accession of Elizabeth II,
> "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act, 1867, referred to
> a male.

What law or legal text can you provide to back up your claim?

> That's what everyone in this discussion has been trying
> to tell you for the last three days.

Not everyone in this discussion has been trying to tell me
that for the last three days.

Joseph McMillan wrote:
> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
> 
>>Do you claim that "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act, 1867
>>has referred to a male?
>>
> 
> YES!  Right!  You've got it!  For the 50+ years between the death of
> Victoria and the accession of Elizabeth II, "Her Majesty" in the
> Constitution Act, 1867, referred to a male.  That's what everyone in
> this discussion has been trying to tell you for the last three days.
> 
> Joseph McMillan



Of course it would seem that the people concerned with thread seem to 
think that every time the sovereign changes from female to male, that 
the goverment will get out their text editors and change every reference 
of the word 'her' to 'his'....like theirs nothing else to do.

These acts are written at the time the sovereign was female so anyone 
with even the most basic undestanding of the english language should 
understand why the word 'her' was used.



> 
"(2) As enacted by the Constitution Act, 1982, which came into force on 
April 17, 1982. The section, as originally enacted, read as follows:

     1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act, 1867.

(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.

Stephen Jenuth wrote:
> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
[trimmed]
> > Are amendments made for the Governor General? The Governor
> > General, in the Constitution Act, 1867 and in the Letters
> > Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada,
> > is referred to only in the male gender by the use of words
> > such as "he", "his", "him", and "himself".
>
> Canada's current interpretation act has the following provision.
>
> 33. (1) Words importing female persons include male persons
> and corporations and words importing male persons include
> female persons and corporations.
>
> So, no, the letters patent which constitute the office of
> Governor General does not need to change when the occupant
> of the office is female.

In Canadian law, examples exist of words importing male
persons including only male persons.

In Canadian law, examples exist of words importing female
persons including only female persons.

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:

> Stephen Jenuth wrote:

>> You are right.  There was never any such amendment.  It was
>> covered in the Interpretation Act, 1889.
> 
> Can you provide the text of the Interpretation Act, 1889?

Eventually, I will be able to.  There is no easily accessible online source. 
I suppose I could type it in after getting a copy from the library.

On the other hand, I really do want to leave on vacation this week, and that
does not really seem like a productive use of my time.

Maybe you should go and try to find it.
> 
> 
> Do you claim that "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act, 1867
> has referred to a male?

Its one of those temporal things.  If the section referred to involved the
King acting, the answer is yes.  If your are talking about the enacting
section, then you would have to look at the time it was enacted.  That was
1867, and then the sovereign was Queen Victoria.

> For example, Section 14 states:
> "It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit,
> to authorize the Governor General from Time to Time to appoint
> any Person or any Persons jointly or severally to be his
> Deputy or Deputies within any Part or Parts of Canada, and
> in that Capacity to exercise during the Pleasure of the Governor
> General such of the Powers, Authorities, and Functions of the
> Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or
> expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any Limitations
> or Directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the
> Appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect
> the Exercise by the Governor General himself of any Power,
> Authority, or Function."

See above.  It would depend on when the authorization was granted.

-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:

> 
> Joseph McMillan wrote:
>> dpwozney@ocii.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you claim that "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act,
>> > 1867 has referred to a male?
>> >
>> YES!  Right!  You've got it!  For the 50+ years between
>> the death of Victoria and the accession of Elizabeth II,
>> "Her Majesty" in the Constitution Act, 1867, referred to
>> a male.
> 
> What law or legal text can you provide to back up your claim?

The Interpretation Act, 1889.  Look it up herself.

>> That's what everyone in this discussion has been trying
>> to tell you for the last three days.
> 
> Not everyone in this discussion has been trying to tell me
> that for the last three days.

-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net

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.

-- 
Best regards,

Stephen Jenuth
(jenuths@homacjen.ab.ca)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

pgp/gpg public key available at http://www.keyserver.net