Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Mojo]

Let me get this straight, just so I understand your mindset. A document which is 144 years old, and is an inanimate object, which no one alive agreed to, gives some people power over others, and neither the governed nor the governing can change it, and their consent is not required, BECAUSE A DOCUMENT GIVES ONE PARTY POWER OVER ANOTHER, AND CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY EITHER PARTY TO BE BOUND BY THOSE WORDS NEITHER OF THEM WROTE OR AGREED TO. Is THAT your position?

Nope. It doesn't in itself give anyone power over anyone else. It allows your elected representatives to consent to legislation on your behalf. You have exactly the same rights as they do to stand for election and, if you can get sufficient numbers of your fellow citizens to agree with you, to change it. You're living in a representative democracy, and that's how a representative democracy works.

Well then I would agree and say that the consent the Senate and House of Commons gives to The Queen is not consent for me. Exactly like your argument above.

Yes it is. See above.

The Senate and HOC consented to the Queen enacting something. Now if they do not rep[resent me, does their consent empower the Queen over me?

The question does not arise, because they do represent you.

If in doubt, just read your own position above, and try to explain why it would work in one situation, when the Senate and HOC is the one doing the consenting, and not in the other?

Because that's how your constitution works. If you don't like it you can get yourself elected and change it.

Can't have it both ways. Either one party or group can affect others with their consent alone, or they cannot, as a function of law.

Your representatives' consent includes your consent. They are your representatives (and the representatives of your fellow citizens), but you are not their representative.

Me consenting to someone doing something to me does not empower them to do it to someone else who has not consented directly or consented to me entering agreements on their behalf.

Patently, because you are incapable of getting yourself elected to a position where it would.

The Senate and HOC consenting to someone doing something to them, does not empower that someone to do that something to someone else who has not consented, nor consented to being represented by them.

But their consent to legislation means that you are deemed to have consented to it. They are your representatives, and that is how a representative democracy works.

EXACT SAME THING. Unless, the people in the government are above the law.

Nope. The laws apply to them as well.

 

[Mojo]

And let's just remember how we got here: you asked why, if your consent is not necessary for statutes to be deemed as having the force of law, the word "consent" appears in them. The neccessary consent is the consent of your representatives.

 

[FreemanMenard]

No, I said forget everything else.
How much?

Um, I do not care what you said.
I said answer the question and I will answer yours.

How does a document physically force two people to do what neither of them wishes to do? Can it? No armies, no other parties, one document, two people. Can the document force them or not?

 

[Stacey Grove]

How does a document physically force two people to do what neither of them wishes to do? Can it? No armies, no other parties, one document, two people. Can the document force them or not?

Right so you've now changed from

Let me get this straight, just so I understand your mindset. A document which is 144 years old, and is an inanimate object, which no one alive agreed to, gives some people power over others, and neither the governed nor the governing can change it, and their consent is not required, BECAUSE A DOCUMENT GIVES ONE PARTY POWER OVER ANOTHER, AND CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY EITHER PARTY TO BE BOUND BY THOSE WORDS NEITHER OF THEM WROTE OR AGREED TO. Is THAT your position?

 

[FreemanMenard]

And let's just remember how we got here: you asked why, if your consent is not necessary for statutes to be deemed as having the force of law, the word "consent" appears in them. The neccessary consent is the consent of your representatives.

And they are only my representatives if I CONSENT TO IT!
Just look up the definition of representative.
It will say Agent.
Look up agent.
agent n. a person who is authorized to act for another (the agent's principal) through employment, by contract or apparent authority.
See the need for authorization, and thus consent.
Weep.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Right so you've now changed from

More avoidance of the question is obvious avoidance of question.
Don't want to answer do you?

Keep doing the 'twisty avoid the question' dance Stacey.

 

[jargon buster]

Of course hes changed the scenario, it's his normal method of deception.
Its blah ,blah ,blah you do it like that
Slam goes the cell door on some poor unfortunate.
No its not like that its blah, blah, blah.

 

[D'rok]

Um, I do not care what you said.
I said answer the question and I will answer yours.

How does a document physically force two people to do what neither of them wishes to do? Can it? No armies, no other parties, one document, two people. Can the document force them or not?

Quit this idiotic sophistry.

Statutes are not contracts. They are not documents that bind two people vis-a-vis each other. You sell the outrageous lie that statutes require consent in the same way that contracts do. This has been proven to be a lie in this very thread in the post from JLord that you are studiously ignoring.

Provide evidence that your teachings about consent are true, or stop selling lies to the gullible.

 

[Stacey Grove]

More avoidance of the question is obvious avoidance of question.

If you're going to be moving goalposts mid discussion then yes.

 

[jargon buster]

And they are only my representatives if I CONSENT TO IT!

You live in Canada, they are the representatives of the people of Canada, so yes you do consent.
They have your consent Rob, and if you say they don't, it doesn't matter, they will just ignore your silliness.
If you had the guts to stand up to them you would find out for yourself.

 

[FreemanMenard]

If you're going to be moving goalposts mid discussion then yes.

There was no movement of the goal posts, there was clarification due to you trying to inject armies and TPTB into the equation when it was never first included. The posts have not moved at all, YOU SIMPLY DID NOT KNOW WHERE THEY WERE TO BEGIN WITH.

So answer the question.

 

[Stacey Grove]

There was no movement of the goal posts, there was clarification due to you trying to inject armies and TPTB into the equation when it was never first included. The posts have not moved at all, YOU SIMPLY DID NOT KNOW WHERE THEY WERE TO BEGIN WITH.

Yes I did.
It all started here:

Originally Posted by Border Reiver
The Senate and House have the authority granted them by the British North America Act (1867), and the Constitution Act (1982) to pass laws for the governance of Canada - Civics 101.

The laws they pass have jurisdiction throughout Canada - and yes, they even govern you. Look how the federal regulations caused you to have to forgo travelling by air a few years ago. Your consent wasn't required then, and still isn't today. We've already answered you about this consent to be governed nonsense of yours, and provided a concrete example from your own life experience.

You replied:

Let me get this straight, just so I understand your mindset. A document which is 144 years old, and is an inanimate object, which no one alive agreed to, gives some people power over others, and neither the governed nor the governing can change it, and their consent is not required, BECAUSE A DOCUMENT GIVES ONE PARTY POWER OVER ANOTHER, AND CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY EITHER PARTY TO BE BOUND BY THOSE WORDS NEITHER OF THEM WROTE OR AGREED TO. Is THAT your position?
Looks mighty stupid when examined in such a light does it not?

Now show me at which point we moved from discussing Acts such as Border Reiver quoted.

 

[FreemanMenard]

And let's just remember how we got here: you asked why, if your consent is not necessary for statutes to be deemed as having the force of law, the word "consent" appears in them. The neccessary consent is the consent of your representatives.

Actually if you check you will see I did not ask about 'my' consent at all, but of consent generally. That was my point as a matter of fact. Consent either directly or by proxy is required.

You may wish to increase your reading comprehension skills, as you read into it that I was arguing about 'my consent' personally, when all I was arguing was 'consent' generally. But now we are in agreement, that consent is mentioned, and is needed.
And that is what I wanted to establish.
The consent of the people is needed, and is apparently being secured through proxy, or representative.

Would you agree with THAT?

 

[FreemanMenard]

Yes I did.
It all started here:




You replied:


Now show me at which point we moved from discussing Acts such as Border Reiver quoted.

TRANSLATION:
Jump through all these hoops and forget I have yet to answer your question about how a document can force people to do things they do not consent to.
Did you wish to discuss who said what and where a particular point started, or answer the question? Do you wish to discuss the discussion to avoid answering the questions posed within the discussion?

 

[Stacey Grove]

TRANSLATION:
Jump through all these hoops and forget I have yet to answer your question about how a document can force people to do things they do not consent to.
Did you wish to discuss who said what and where a particular point started, or answer the question? Do you wish to discuss the discussion to avoid answering the questions posed within the discussion?

I have answered the question regarding acts that were passed many moons ago a few times. It's quite simple. Force is used.

 

[FreemanMenard]

I have answered the question regarding acts that were passed many moons ago a few times. It's quite simple. Force is used.

Yes, you are not answering the question being posed. YOu are pointing to one asked long ago, and which has no bearing on the one being asked now.
Are you confused? Would you like me to reiterate?

If force is used, is the document using it?
Remember, there is only TWO parties, and ONE document.
Nothing more. No armies, no third parties.
So if force is used, and it is neither of the parties, it must be the document.

So tell me, how does a document use force? Because THAT is the question, not the one you answered according to you so long ago.

 

[Stacey Grove]

Yes, you are not answering the question being posed. YOu are pointing to one asked long ago, and which has no bearing on the one being asked now.
Are you confused? Would you like me to reiterate?

If force is used, is the document using it?
Remember, there is only TWO parties, and ONE document.
Nothing more. No armies, no third parties.
So if forcer is used, and it is neither of the parties, it must be the document.

So tell me, how does a document use force? Because THAT is the question, not the one you answered according to you so long ago.

That question is stupid.
To suggest to enforce statute no third parties are involved is frankly ignorant.
Because clearly they are.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Can the document force them or not?

Forgive the indelicacy but what a daft question. Actually nothing more needs to be said on that one.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob, why are you wasting peoples time with such an idiotic question?

Its clear you have simply jumped from the previous question that wasnt answered to your liking.

 

[Cocana The Second]

And they are only my representatives if I CONSENT TO IT!
Just look up the definition of representative.
It will say Agent.
Look up agent.
agent n. a person who is authorized to act for another (the agent's principal) through employment, by contract or apparent authority.
See the need for authorization, and thus consent.
Weep.

No, they're your representatives if the majority of the electorate vote for them. Rob Menard doesn't have the final say.