The existing oath of course never implied any scope for a lawyer to choose to neglect his duty of care to clients on other grounds.

When a lawyer failed in his duty of care to an elderly, disabled, woman he got sued. Not because the client was elderly or disabled or a woman but because the lawyer was incompetent and failed in his duty of care.

Mike wrote:
Hmmm. 54% Protestant, 30% Catholic. Wonder how the "Catholics Rule Congress" heading came about?

I don't agree with the Sermonaudio edited headline (which is btw subtly changed from the original Newsmax.com "Catholics Rule Congress, But Others Catching Up").

But it is perhaps analogous to a situation where you have the largest single grouping in a real multi-party democracy with genuine choice. Remember the 54% protestant is to be taken in the truly catholic universal sense has of the term.

Neil wrote:
Since all parties here are in error, it is deliciously ludicrous, like an April Fools story or satire.

The notion of admission by tax-ticket or tax-return holders brings to mind ...
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?"

I wonder whether church taxes are flat rate, proportional, regressive or progressive? Perhaps some of our German or Lutheran friends could let us know ....
And should church taxes be truly "voluntary" for church members too like some would tell us US Federal Income Taxes are? Are any church members in jail for failing to pay their church taxes?

"After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century. "

"The prince was defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 after raising an army to take the British throne. "

This army was raised and the battle was fought in "Secret"?

Psalms Only wrote:
The hymn "Oh come all you faithful...." apparently is an "ode" written for Bonnie Prince Charlie of the Jacobite fame.
Quote
"One of the most popular Christmas carols has a secret political code linked to the Jacobite rebellion, a Durham University professor claims.

Do you have any other sources PO?

In the meantime, I'll file it with [URL=http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp]]]this[/URL] myth.

BTW - Reminds me of that bizarre school of theological hobbycraft that tells us Revelation was a secret message to Greek churches to tell them what would happen in Jerusalem. Quite why it was a "good and necessary consequence" to find a SECRET code to unlock that which Jesus PUBLICLY proclaimed I've never been able to fathom!

Neil wrote:
So I'm supposed to believe that the Rothschilds are powerful enough to "own" all the world's major players, but *not* powerful enough to stop Amazon.com from selling "13 Bloodlines of the Illuminati."

Mike wrote:
Those Arab heroes must not be easy to come by. We have the 9-11 firemen, they have a guy throwing a shoe.

Be fair.
It was two shoes. That's twice as many as Khrushchev!
And he did actually throw them rather than just bang the desk with them.

Evidently American Presidents are worth more shoes than British Prime Ministers.

Banned wrote:
Right. Obama is a con man, a fraud, a committed enemy of the country, the highest level spy this country has ever encountered. Congress and the Supreme Court and the media are the traitors for covering up for him knowingly.

Thank you for the information.
Seems the media did find this a matter of constitutional debate after all.

You seem to have found a scurrilous precedent, which up to now no-one has had the temerity to repeat, for Harper's scurrilously bad advice.

This was striking and shows the impropriety of the supposed precedent:-

"Dufferin agonized over the correct course of action, writing torrents of letters to anyone who might be able to shed light on the matter, but swearing all these unofficial advisors to secrecy and asking them to burn his letters. He complained of the ABSENCE of precedent and the fact that "the very men who were bound to advise me were those MOST [i.e. self-]INTERESTED in cajoling me into some FALSE MOVE." The message from the British secretary of state for the colonies, Lord Kimberley, did not provide much guidance: "We shall be sure to give you all possible support ... unless you made some egregious blunder." Yet in the end, Dufferin accepted Macdonald's advice and prorogued the House."

However, you don't seem to wish to see the same final outcome this time?

"That said, was the Governor-General correct in accepting Harper's advice to prorogue Parliament? The answer is an unqualified yes."

The issue is not whether or not we like or dislike Stephen Harper (That said, personally speaking I was delighted with the election result in October). The issue is whether we follow the constitution.

Constitutionality is a profound issue in this case as you will know if you followed the matter at all in the media.

The constitution is based upon precedent. It is unprecedented for a Prime Minister to ask for a prorogation of Parliament simply to avoid a confidence vote. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister's duty is to advise the GG in the best interests of the country, not in his own personal political self-interest. It is outrageous that he abused his office and duty to advise the GG in such a way knowingly placing her in a totally unacceptable and political position.

Canada is a Parliamentary democracy.
Sovereignty is vested in the Crown in Parliament.
The government is chosen from within the Parliament.

Canada is not governed by opinion polls, and it is a constitutional obscenity for a PM to make a public TV appeal to "democracy" whilst showing contempt for Parliamentary democracy.

Mike wrote:
Two different things, rogerant. Conservatism was set aside by neoconservatives.

And as Rogerant will have observed his own Canada has been afflicted with the same evil.

A "conservative" Prime Minister would never ask the Crown to set aside Parliament in order for him to personally avoid the outworking of constitutional parliamentary democracy.

A "neo-conservative" pays no regard to the constitution.
When faced with an evident failure to carry the confidence of Parliament, instead of the Prime Minister's government being suspended, he asks for Parliament to be suspended instead!
Makes you wonder why any fool prime minister ever submitted to a Confidence vote in Parliament at any point in history?

Interesting to note that Stephen Harper self-consciously identifies himself with the same support that George Bush drew on in the States, and is himself a part of the "Christian Right".

Mike wrote:
Whatever may you feel about it, treason is defined solely by Article 3, Section 3.

In addition, if their contention is that Obama is not a citizen of the United States but instead of Kenya (or Britain, or Indonesia, etc etc etc. What is it today?) then he could NOT commit treason against the United States.

FYI:-
"Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. "