Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Hi Chris, Thought you might be further amused......... Afterall, sovereignty is for some more than just a state of mind...............Regards, John QUESTION: What was the statute passed by the British government that gave former colonies like Canada the ability to govern their own foreign affairs. This permitted Canada to decide if we would join a future war against the likes of Germany without HAVING to go to war because Britain did. In what year did it become law? ANSWER: Statute of Westminster, 11 December 1931 WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE Statute of Westminster, CANADA CEASED TO BE A COLONY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: She became a nation state in her own right. In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and federal governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the Constitution home. There were also requests from Québec after the Quiet Revolution for a renewal of Confederation. Topics in this section: The Statute of Westminster, 1931 Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers Ottawa's Political and Financial Clout Newfoundland Enters Confederation The Supreme Court is Finally Supreme Renewing the Constitution Other Interesting or Important Documents The Statute of Westminster, 1931 The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made several key provisions: § British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the Dominions. § Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws. § British law no longer applied to the Dominions. Although Canada had already acted on her own in the past, the Statute of Westminster formally put external affairs under the authority of the federal government. Thus, when World War II began in 1939, Canada did not automatically go to war with Britain. As an independent nation, Canada declared war six days after the British. Statute of Westminster, 1931 (Courtesy of Department of Justice, Canada) Copyright/Source Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers The division of powers between the provinces and the federal government was only formally changed three times before 1982. The Great Depression showed that the provinces could not cope with major economic and social crises alone or equally. In particular, weaker provinces fared worse than larger provinces like Ontario, which had more resources. Becoming Free Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College Once upon a time the sun never set on the British Empire, but this did not last. One by one England's colonies attained their legal independence, either by war or negotiation. As the age of colonialism was coming to an end, England, a law-loving country, wanted a standardized procedure for granting, sealing, and recognizing the independence of its former colonies. To this end the English Parliament adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Colonies and dominions freed after 1931 were freed under the terms of this statute, which provided (among other things) that England could no longer legislate for them without their explicit request and consent. This looked like the most thorough and tidy way to sever legal ties between two nations, and that was the point. It soon occurred to lawyers in England and in the former colonies that the Statute of Westminster was merely a statute, and could be repealed by Parliament. What if a colony adopts its own constitution and runs its own life and a century later England repeals the Statute of Westminster? Would the former colony's freedom be revoked at the same time? To many legal minds the answer was yes. Are the liberated colonies, then, free only under the command of England? It may be that in 1931 England really did abdicate the desire or intention to legislate for its old colonies, and that in any case it had no real power left to do so. But courts and politicians in the former colonies wanted to know whether in law England retained a right to legislate. It appeared that one generation of English people had done its best to surrender this right to legislate, but had done so with frustrating incompleteness, since any later generation could restore it. This was a world class cartoon of the child with flypaper on its fingers trying to shake it off. Nothing that England could do, it seems, could give the colonies full legal independence, for if it were done in law, then it could be undone; and if were not done in law, it would not be lawful. England was learning that it is paradoxical to command another to be free or even to offer another their freedom as a gift. One tempting solution was to interpret the Statute of Westminster as irrevocable, that is, beyond the power of Parliament to repeal. That would guarantee that the emancipated countries would stay emancipated. But it would also contradict the independence of the English people, their sovereignty in their own country, and deny them the power to change their own laws. Following this line of reasoning Parliament decided in 1935 that the Statute of Westminster could in principle be repealed. So the paradox of liberation remains. Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote: Hi Bob, Thanks for the info. It's not to say that other charts can't be used in tandem. So if you find some hits using the proclamation chart useful in this way, that's great. Still, you can't use the relo Mayerthorpe LR for predictive purposes. My point is which chart reveals information with the least effort? To me, it's the midnight chart. Chris --- bobnicewander <jan61108 wrote: > > Using the chart for a 12:05 PM birthtime for Canada, relocated to > Mayerthorpe, and doing a precession corrected lunar return, yields a > chart with an East Point (90 degree square in right ascension to the > MC) of 279d 14m with return Mars conjunct at 279d 48m and return Moon > and natal Uranus opposite it at 99d 33m and 99d 25m respectively. > > bob > > , " Dave " <dadsnook@c...> wrote: > > > > , Christopher Kevill > > <ckevill> wrote: > > > This was the bloodiest day for the police in Canada in 120 years > > as 4 RCMP > officers were killed in a drug-related shootout. (snip) > > > > > > Many mundane astrologers, including Nicholas Campion (and his big > > book), observe the ceremonial proclamation of Canada at 12.05 pm as > > the correct natal chart. I've never believed that chart was the > > best one however, and this simple transit related event gives > > further support to the de jure midnight chart as the most useful. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > REPLY: > > Chris, I am not in a position to promote one Canadia birth chart > > over another one. However, the news about the four RCMP officers > > being killed was most intriguing. I use Moon Moores' Book of World > > Horoscopes -- for Canada he uses a chart set for Noontime. Using > > that chart, I first relocated the chart to the site of the killings, > > and then ran precession-corrected Solar Returns and then progressed > > the angles to March 3, 2005. The resulting chart was under-whelming > > in its lack of significance. > > > > (...) > > > > Dave. > > > > ===== http://modernVedic Astrology.com Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday./netrospective/ " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Hey John, This is good stuff. It may even be a workable chart for all I know. Certainly Canada had less sovereignty in WW1 than they did in WW2 so this 1931 act was part of that devolution. Still, I think it was more a reflection of an already existing state of affairs. But I will give it a look. Chris --- John T W B <jtwbjakarta wrote: > Hi Chris, Thought you might be further amused......... Afterall, > sovereignty is for some more than just a state of > mind...............Regards, John > > > > > QUESTION: What was the statute passed by the British government that > gave former colonies like Canada the ability to govern their own foreign > affairs. This permitted Canada to decide if we would join a future war > against the likes of Germany without HAVING to go to war because Britain > did. In what year did it become law? > > > > ANSWER: Statute of Westminster, 11 December 1931 > > WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE Statute of Westminster, CANADA CEASED TO BE A > COLONY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: > > She became a nation state in her own right. > > > In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and federal > governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a > major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the > Constitution home. There were also requests from Québec after the Quiet > Revolution for a renewal of Confederation. > Topics in this section: > The Statute of Westminster, 1931 > Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers > Ottawa's Political and Financial Clout > Newfoundland Enters Confederation > The Supreme Court is Finally Supreme > Renewing the Constitution > Other Interesting or Important Documents > > The Statute of Westminster, 1931 > The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and > negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, > Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made > several key provisions: > > § British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the > Dominions. > > § Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws. > > § British law no longer applied to the Dominions. > > Although Canada had already acted on her own in the past, the Statute of > Westminster formally put external affairs under the authority of the > federal government. Thus, when World War II began in 1939, Canada did > not automatically go to war with Britain. As an independent nation, > Canada declared war six days after the British. > > > > > > Statute of Westminster, 1931 > (Courtesy of Department of Justice, Canada) > > > Copyright/Source > > Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers > The division of powers between the provinces and the federal government > was only formally changed three times before 1982. The Great > Depression showed that the provinces could not cope with major economic > and social crises alone or equally. In particular, weaker provinces > fared worse than larger provinces like Ontario, which had more > resources. > > > > Becoming Free > > Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College > > > > Once upon a time the sun never set on the British Empire, but this did > not last. One by one England's colonies attained their legal > independence, either by war or negotiation. As the age of > colonialism was coming to an end, England, a law-loving country, wanted > a standardized procedure for granting, sealing, and recognizing the > independence of its former colonies. To this end the English Parliament > adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Colonies and dominions freed > after 1931 were freed under the terms of this statute, which provided > (among other things) that England could no longer legislate for them > without their explicit request and consent. This looked like the most > thorough and tidy way to sever legal ties between two nations, and that > was the point. > > It soon occurred to lawyers in England and in the former colonies that > the Statute of Westminster was merely a statute, and could be repealed > by Parliament. What if a colony adopts its own constitution and runs its > own life and a century later England repeals the Statute of Westminster? > Would the former colony's freedom be revoked at the same time? To many > legal minds the answer was yes. Are the liberated colonies, then, free > only under the command of England? It may be that in 1931 England really > did abdicate the desire or intention to legislate for its old > colonies, and that in any case it had no real power left to do so. > But courts and politicians in the former colonies wanted to know > whether in law England retained a right to legislate. It appeared that > one generation of English people had done its best to surrender this > right to legislate, but had done so with frustrating incompleteness, > since any later generation could restore it. This was a world class > cartoon > of the child with flypaper on its fingers trying to shake it off. > Nothing that England could do, it seems, could give the colonies full > legal independence, for if it were done in law, then it could be undone; > and if were not done in law, it would not be lawful. England was > learning that it is paradoxical to command another to be free or even to > offer another their freedom as a gift. > > One tempting solution was to interpret the Statute of Westminster as > irrevocable, that is, beyond the power of Parliament to repeal. > That would guarantee that the emancipated countries would stay > emancipated. But it would also contradict the independence of the > English people, their sovereignty in their own country, and deny them > the power to change their own laws. Following this line of reasoning > Parliament decided in 1935 that the Statute of Westminster could in > principle be repealed. So the paradox of liberation remains. > > > > > Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote: > Hi Bob, > > Thanks for the info. It's not to say that other charts can't be used in > tandem. So if you find some hits using the proclamation chart useful in > this way, that's great. Still, you can't use the relo Mayerthorpe LR > for > predictive purposes. > > My point is which chart reveals information with the least effort? To > me, > it's the midnight chart. > > Chris > > > --- bobnicewander <jan61108 wrote: > > > > > Using the chart for a 12:05 PM birthtime for Canada, relocated to > > Mayerthorpe, and doing a precession corrected lunar return, yields a > > chart with an East Point (90 degree square in right ascension to the > > MC) of 279d 14m with return Mars conjunct at 279d 48m and return Moon > > and natal Uranus opposite it at 99d 33m and 99d 25m respectively. > > > > bob > > > > , " Dave " <dadsnook@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > , Christopher Kevill > > > <ckevill> wrote: > > > > This was the bloodiest day for the police in Canada in 120 years > > > as 4 RCMP > officers were killed in a drug-related shootout. (snip) > > > > > > > > Many mundane astrologers, including Nicholas Campion (and his big > > > book), observe the ceremonial proclamation of Canada at 12.05 pm as > > > the correct natal chart. I've never believed that chart was the > > > best one however, and this simple transit related event gives > > > further support to the de jure midnight chart as the most useful. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > REPLY: > > > Chris, I am not in a position to promote one Canadia birth chart > > > over another one. However, the news about the four RCMP officers > > > being killed was most intriguing. I use Moon Moores' Book of World > > > Horoscopes -- for Canada he uses a chart set for Noontime. Using > > > that chart, I first relocated the chart to the site of the killings, > > > > and then ran precession-corrected Solar Returns and then progressed > > > the angles to March 3, 2005. The resulting chart was under-whelming > > > > in its lack of significance. > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > http://modernVedic Astrology.com > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday./netrospective/ > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Hi Chris I have almost no enthusiasm for this research. However: I still like your choice of date, July 1, 1867, because it represents the Constitutional birth moment of Canada's national government...the national equivalent of the USA's March 1, 1781 Articles of Confederation (a constitution in its own right, by the way). That Canada's confederated (national) government was born while the Canadian nation was still a colony of the United Kingdom ( " Dominion " is a British code-word for colony) is historically interesting, I suppose. But I should think the event you are focused on is a government event: the national police in a shoot out with illicit drug traffickers. Whatever !!! Regards, John Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote: Hey John, This is good stuff. It may even be a workable chart for all I know. Certainly Canada had less sovereignty in WW1 than they did in WW2 so this 1931 act was part of that devolution. Still, I think it was more a reflection of an already existing state of affairs. But I will give it a look. Chris --- John T W B wrote: > Hi Chris, Thought you might be further amused......... Afterall, > sovereignty is for some more than just a state of > mind...............Regards, John > > > > > QUESTION: What was the statute passed by the British government that > gave former colonies like Canada the ability to govern their own foreign > affairs. This permitted Canada to decide if we would join a future war > against the likes of Germany without HAVING to go to war because Britain > did. In what year did it become law? > > > > ANSWER: Statute of Westminster, 11 December 1931 > > WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE Statute of Westminster, CANADA CEASED TO BE A > COLONY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: > > She became a nation state in her own right. > > > In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and federal > governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a > major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the > Constitution home. There were also requests from Québec after the Quiet > Revolution for a renewal of Confederation. > Topics in this section: > The Statute of Westminster, 1931 > Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers > Ottawa's Political and Financial Clout > Newfoundland Enters Confederation > The Supreme Court is Finally Supreme > Renewing the Constitution > Other Interesting or Important Documents > > The Statute of Westminster, 1931 > The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and > negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, > Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made > several key provisions: > > § British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the > Dominions. > > § Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws. > > § British law no longer applied to the Dominions. > > Although Canada had already acted on her own in the past, the Statute of > Westminster formally put external affairs under the authority of the > federal government. Thus, when World War II began in 1939, Canada did > not automatically go to war with Britain. As an independent nation, > Canada declared war six days after the British. > > > > > > Statute of Westminster, 1931 > (Courtesy of Department of Justice, Canada) > > > Copyright/Source > > Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers > The division of powers between the provinces and the federal government > was only formally changed three times before 1982. The Great > Depression showed that the provinces could not cope with major economic > and social crises alone or equally. In particular, weaker provinces > fared worse than larger provinces like Ontario, which had more > resources. > > > > Becoming Free > > Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College > > > > Once upon a time the sun never set on the British Empire, but this did > not last. One by one England's colonies attained their legal > independence, either by war or negotiation. As the age of > colonialism was coming to an end, England, a law-loving country, wanted > a standardized procedure for granting, sealing, and recognizing the > independence of its former colonies. To this end the English Parliament > adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Colonies and dominions freed > after 1931 were freed under the terms of this statute, which provided > (among other things) that England could no longer legislate for them > without their explicit request and consent. This looked like the most > thorough and tidy way to sever legal ties between two nations, and that > was the point. > > It soon occurred to lawyers in England and in the former colonies that > the Statute of Westminster was merely a statute, and could be repealed > by Parliament. What if a colony adopts its own constitution and runs its > own life and a century later England repeals the Statute of Westminster? > Would the former colony's freedom be revoked at the same time? To many > legal minds the answer was yes. Are the liberated colonies, then, free > only under the command of England? It may be that in 1931 England really > did abdicate the desire or intention to legislate for its old > colonies, and that in any case it had no real power left to do so. > But courts and politicians in the former colonies wanted to know > whether in law England retained a right to legislate. It appeared that > one generation of English people had done its best to surrender this > right to legislate, but had done so with frustrating incompleteness, > since any later generation could restore it. This was a world class > cartoon > of the child with flypaper on its fingers trying to shake it off. > Nothing that England could do, it seems, could give the colonies full > legal independence, for if it were done in law, then it could be undone; > and if were not done in law, it would not be lawful. England was > learning that it is paradoxical to command another to be free or even to > offer another their freedom as a gift. > > One tempting solution was to interpret the Statute of Westminster as > irrevocable, that is, beyond the power of Parliament to repeal. > That would guarantee that the emancipated countries would stay > emancipated. But it would also contradict the independence of the > English people, their sovereignty in their own country, and deny them > the power to change their own laws. Following this line of reasoning > Parliament decided in 1935 that the Statute of Westminster could in > principle be repealed. So the paradox of liberation remains. > > > > > Christopher Kevill wrote: > Hi Bob, > > Thanks for the info. It's not to say that other charts can't be used in > tandem. So if you find some hits using the proclamation chart useful in > this way, that's great. Still, you can't use the relo Mayerthorpe LR > for > predictive purposes. > > My point is which chart reveals information with the least effort? To > me, > it's the midnight chart. > > Chris > > > --- bobnicewander wrote: > > > > > Using the chart for a 12:05 PM birthtime for Canada, relocated to > > Mayerthorpe, and doing a precession corrected lunar return, yields a > > chart with an East Point (90 degree square in right ascension to the > > MC) of 279d 14m with return Mars conjunct at 279d 48m and return Moon > > and natal Uranus opposite it at 99d 33m and 99d 25m respectively. > > > > bob > > > > , " Dave " > wrote: > > > > > > , Christopher Kevill > > > wrote: > > > > This was the bloodiest day for the police in Canada in 120 years > > > as 4 RCMP > officers were killed in a drug-related shootout. (snip) > > > > > > > > Many mundane astrologers, including Nicholas Campion (and his big > > > book), observe the ceremonial proclamation of Canada at 12.05 pm as > > > the correct natal chart. I've never believed that chart was the > > > best one however, and this simple transit related event gives > > > further support to the de jure midnight chart as the most useful. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > REPLY: > > > Chris, I am not in a position to promote one Canadia birth chart > > > over another one. However, the news about the four RCMP officers > > > being killed was most intriguing. I use Moon Moores' Book of World > > > Horoscopes -- for Canada he uses a chart set for Noontime. Using > > > that chart, I first relocated the chart to the site of the killings, > > > > and then ran precession-corrected Solar Returns and then progressed > > > the angles to March 3, 2005. The resulting chart was under-whelming > > > > in its lack of significance. > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > http://modernVedic Astrology.com > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday./netrospective/ > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 Hi John, Thanks again for all this less than thrilling research work. It's okay, we know we're boring and have boring history. That's why people from other countries with " interesting " history want to move here! I think " Dominion " isn't a code word for colony however. If you're a colony of the UK, you know it! No code words necessary. Jamaica for example was never a dominion. Neither was India. Its a special status of full sovereignty while maintaining allegiance to the British Crown. Perhaps not full sovereignty in contemporary (republican) understandings of the word, but sovereignty nonetheless. BTW, what chart for Indonesia best shows the tsunami? Chris --- John T W B <jtwbjakarta wrote: > Hi Chris > > I have almost no enthusiasm for this research. However: > > I still like your choice of date, July 1, 1867, because it represents > the Constitutional birth moment of Canada's national government...the > national equivalent of the USA's March 1, 1781 Articles of Confederation > (a constitution in its own right, by the way). > > That Canada's confederated (national) government was born while the > Canadian nation was still a colony of the United Kingdom ( " Dominion " is > a British code-word for colony) is historically interesting, I suppose. > > > But I should think the event you are focused on is a government event: > the national police in a shoot out with illicit drug traffickers. > > Whatever !!! > > Regards, John > > > > Christopher Kevill <ckevill wrote: > > Hey John, > > This is good stuff. It may even be a workable chart for all I know. > Certainly Canada had less sovereignty in WW1 than they did in WW2 so > this > 1931 act was part of that devolution. Still, I think it was more a > reflection of an already existing state of affairs. > > But I will give it a look. > > Chris > > > --- John T W B wrote: > > > Hi Chris, Thought you might be further amused......... Afterall, > > sovereignty is for some more than just a state of > > mind...............Regards, John > > > > > > > > > > QUESTION: What was the statute passed by the British government that > > gave former colonies like Canada the ability to govern their own > foreign > > affairs. This permitted Canada to decide if we would join a future war > > against the likes of Germany without HAVING to go to war because > Britain > > did. In what year did it become law? > > > > > > > > ANSWER: Statute of Westminster, 11 December 1931 > > > > WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE Statute of Westminster, CANADA CEASED TO BE A > > COLONY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: > > > > She became a nation state in her own right. > > > > > > In the next 50 years the balance of power between provinces and > federal > > governments changed a little, but not much. By the end of the 1970s, a > > major movement in Canadian constitutional history was to patriate the > > Constitution home. There were also requests from Québec after the > Quiet > > Revolution for a renewal of Confederation. > > Topics in this section: > > The Statute of Westminster, 1931 > > Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers > > Ottawa's Political and Financial Clout > > Newfoundland Enters Confederation > > The Supreme Court is Finally Supreme > > Renewing the Constitution > > Other Interesting or Important Documents > > > > The Statute of Westminster, 1931 > > The Statute of Westminster was the logical end of years of change and > > negotiation between Britain and her Dominions (Australia, > > Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland). It made > > several key provisions: > > > > § British parliament could no longer nullify laws in the > > Dominions. > > > > § Dominions could make their own extra-territorial laws. > > > > § British law no longer applied to the Dominions. > > > > Although Canada had already acted on her own in the past, the Statute > of > > Westminster formally put external affairs under the authority of the > > federal government. Thus, when World War II began in 1939, Canada did > > not automatically go to war with Britain. As an independent nation, > > Canada declared war six days after the British. > > > > > > > > > > > > Statute of Westminster, 1931 > > (Courtesy of Department of Justice, Canada) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright/Source > > > > Changes in Federal and Provincial Powers > > The division of powers between the provinces and the federal > government > > was only formally changed three times before 1982. The Great > > Depression showed that the provinces could not cope with major > economic > > and social crises alone or equally. In particular, weaker provinces > > fared worse than larger provinces like Ontario, which had more > > resources. > > > > > > > > Becoming Free > > > > Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College > > > > > > > > Once upon a time the sun never set on the British Empire, but this did > > not last. One by one England's colonies attained their legal > > independence, either by war or negotiation. As the age of > > colonialism was coming to an end, England, a law-loving country, > wanted > > a standardized procedure for granting, sealing, and recognizing the > > independence of its former colonies. To this end the English > Parliament > > adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Colonies and dominions > freed > > after 1931 were freed under the terms of this statute, which provided > > (among other things) that England could no longer legislate for them > > without their explicit request and consent. This looked like the most > > thorough and tidy way to sever legal ties between two nations, and > that > > was the point. > > > > It soon occurred to lawyers in England and in the former colonies that > > the Statute of Westminster was merely a statute, and could be repealed > > by Parliament. What if a colony adopts its own constitution and runs > its > > own life and a century later England repeals the Statute of > Westminster? > > Would the former colony's freedom be revoked at the same time? To many > > legal minds the answer was yes. Are the liberated colonies, then, free > > only under the command of England? It may be that in 1931 England > really > > did abdicate the desire or intention to legislate for its old > > colonies, and that in any case it had no real power left to do so. > > But courts and politicians in the former colonies wanted to know > > whether in law England retained a right to legislate. It appeared that > > > one generation of English people had done its best to surrender this > > right to legislate, but had done so with frustrating incompleteness, > > since any later generation could restore it. This was a world class > > cartoon > > of the child with flypaper on its fingers trying to shake it off. > > Nothing that England could do, it seems, could give the colonies full > > legal independence, for if it were done in law, then it could be > undone; > > and if were not done in law, it would not be lawful. England was > > learning that it is paradoxical to command another to be free or even > to > > offer another their freedom as a gift. > > > > One tempting solution was to interpret the Statute of Westminster as > > irrevocable, that is, beyond the power of Parliament to repeal. > > That would guarantee that the emancipated countries would stay > > emancipated. But it would also contradict the independence of the > > English people, their sovereignty in their own country, and deny them > > the power to change their own laws. Following this line of reasoning > > Parliament decided in 1935 that the Statute of Westminster could in > > principle be repealed. So the paradox of liberation remains. > > > > > > > > > > Christopher Kevill wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > > > Thanks for the info. It's not to say that other charts can't be used > in > > tandem. So if you find some hits using the proclamation chart useful > in > > this way, that's great. Still, you can't use the relo Mayerthorpe LR > > for > > predictive purposes. > > > > My point is which chart reveals information with the least effort? To > > me, > > it's the midnight chart. > > > > Chris > > > > > > --- bobnicewander wrote: > > > > > > > > Using the chart for a 12:05 PM birthtime for Canada, relocated to > > > Mayerthorpe, and doing a precession corrected lunar return, yields a > > > chart with an East Point (90 degree square in right ascension to the > > > MC) of 279d 14m with return Mars conjunct at 279d 48m and return > Moon > > > and natal Uranus opposite it at 99d 33m and 99d 25m respectively. > > > > > > bob > > > > > > , " Dave " > > wrote: > > > > > > > > , Christopher Kevill > > > > wrote: > > > > > This was the bloodiest day for the police in Canada in 120 years > > > > > as 4 RCMP > officers were killed in a drug-related shootout. > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > Many mundane astrologers, including Nicholas Campion (and his > big > > > > book), observe the ceremonial proclamation of Canada at 12.05 pm > as > > > > the correct natal chart. I've never believed that chart was the > > > > best one however, and this simple transit related event gives > > > > further support to the de jure midnight chart as the most useful. > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > REPLY: > > > > Chris, I am not in a position to promote one Canadia birth chart > > > > over another one. However, the news about the four RCMP officers > > > > being killed was most intriguing. I use Moon Moores' Book of World > > > > > Horoscopes -- for Canada he uses a chart set for Noontime. Using > > > > that chart, I first relocated the chart to the site of the > killings, > > > > > > and then ran precession-corrected Solar Returns and then > progressed > > > > the angles to March 3, 2005. The resulting chart was > under-whelming > > > > > > in its lack of significance. > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > http://modernVedic Astrology.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Celebrate 's 10th Birthday! > > Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > > http://birthday./netrospective/ > > > > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > > > Post message: > > Subscribe: - > > Un: - > > List owner: -owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > / > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.