Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

I find most people on the other side of that question from myself are typically arrogant enough to claim that their ethical reasoning is absolutely flawlessly conclusive.

Oh wait, didn’t I just say that?

[JamesVincent]

I find most people on the other side of that question from myself are typically arrogant enough to claim that their ethical reasoning is absolutely flawlessly conclusive.

Oh wait, didn’t I just say that?

I think the real problem is, despite what you claim to think, is that the people on the "other side of that question from myself" are quoting real and actual law. Just because you don't agree with it does not make it any less real. So you can either go about actually changing the law or you can type nonsense on the internet like you've been doing for years now. How's that working out for you?

[Psam]

Just to be clear, when you say “real and actual law”, you mean laws enacted under the legislative process depicted in the Constitution, or “supreme law”, and the Constitution became the “supreme law” at the time that it received a signature from the Queen in 1982, because her Majesty has an objectively conclusive ethical right to subject every person in this land to her authority, and her authority is manifested through the Constitution, right? Is there anything incorrect about this equivalency I made to unpack the words you used?

[Psam]

I’m just wondering if you agree that sections 9 and 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867 are “real and actual law”. I talked to a lawyer once who said it’s not. A real and actual lawyer.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Con ... 1.html#h-3

[Psam]

Supreme Court of Canada
Figueroa v Canada

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

“19 Under s. 3 of the Charter , ‘[e]very citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein’. On its face, the scope of s. 3 is relatively narrow: it grants to each citizen no more than the bare right to vote and to run for office in the election of representatives of the federal and provincial legislative assemblies. But Charter analysis requires courts to look beyond the words of the section. In the words of McLachlin C.J.B.C.S.C. (as she then was), ‘[m]ore is intended [in the right to vote] than the bare right to place a ballot in a box’: Dixon v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1989] 4 W.W.R. 393, at p. 403.

“20 In order to determine the scope of s. 3, the Court must first ascertain its purpose. As Dickson J. (as he then was) wrote in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344, ‘[t]he interpretation [of a section of the Charter ] should be . . . a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter ’s protection’. In interpreting the scope of a Charter right, courts must adopt a broad and purposive approach that seeks to ensure that duly enacted legislation is in harmony with the purposes of the Charter .

“21 This Court first considered the purpose of s. 3 in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 (‘Saskatchewan Reference’). In determining that s. 3 does not require absolute equality of voting power, McLachlin J. held that the purpose of s. 3 is ‘effective representation’ (p. 183). This Court has subsequently confirmed, on numerous occasions, that the purpose of s. 3 is effective representation: see Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 876; and Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877.”

In deciding whether an allegation of a denial of section 3 Charter rights as per section 24 of the Charter is consistent with the SCC’s prior rulings on constitutional interpretation, it seems to me that the SCC is claiming that the interpretation that most matches the purpose of section 3, “effective representation”, is the one that applies.

Is it possible that having one vote which may be changed at will gives a citizen access to more effective representation? If this is possible, then interpreting periods of time when these rights are not available to be exercised as denials of these rights in accordance with section 24 is more consistent with SCC constitutional interpretation.

However, of course, even if the right is denied according to section 24, the denial can still be allowed by section 1 if it is “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. The SCC has stated in R v Oakes that justification according to section 1 requires a “pressing and substantial objective” to be named by the party seeking to limit, and then “a preponderance of evidence” must be provided to show that the limit is “rationally connected to the objective”, i.e. the evidence (empirically) shows that denying the right causes the objective to be achieved.

Have I got anything wrong here?

[Burnaby49]

I would hazard a guess but doesn't Canadian law have a timeframe specifically spelled out for voting, like ours is first Tuesday of November every whatever years for whatever office happens to be being voted upon? Seem to recall Burnaby mentioning that before.

Canada has no specific set dates for elections at the provincial and federal levels. What we do have, at least federally and in British Columbia, is legally mandated term of office of four years. However, unlike the US, this isn't absolute and there are two ways a term can be less than this;

1 - A vote of non-confidence - This one's a little odd. Essentially the opposition says that it has no confidence in the current government then parliament votes on it. If the motion passes the government falls. It’s not law or any binding parliamentary rule, it’s just a convention.

In Canadian politics, a vote of no confidence is a motion that the legislature disapproves, and no longer consents to the governing Prime Minister or provincial Premier and the incumbent Cabinet. A vote of no confidence that passes leads to the fall of the incumbent government. The practice originates as a constitutional convention, and remains an uncodified procedure not outlined in any standing orders for the House of Commons of Canada. A no confidence motion may only be directed against the incumbent government in the legislature, with votes of no confidence against the legislature's Official Opposition being inadmissible.

At the federal level a vote of no confidence is a motion presented by a member of the House of Commons that explicitly states the House has no confidence in the incumbent government. The government may also declare any bill or motion to be a question of confidence. Several motions and bills are also considered implicit motions on confidence, and a vote of no confidence may be asserted automatically if they fail to pass. Bills and motions that are considered implicit motions of confidence includes appropriations/supply bills, motions concerning budgetary policy, and the Address in Reply to the speech from the throne. While the failure to pass these bills may be used as an automatic assertion of a vote of no confidence, the opposition is not obligated to assert the failure as a no confidence motion against the government.

Should a vote of no confidence pass, the Prime Minister of Canada is required to submit his or her resignation to the Governor General of Canada. The Governor General may then invite the leader of another coalition/party to attempt to form a new government in the House of Commons, or dissolve Parliament and call for a general election. Six no confidence motions have been passed in the House of Commons of Canada, in 1926, 1963, 1974, 1979, 2005, and 2011. Successful votes of no confidence in the 20th century were all the result of a loss of supply, while votes of no confidence in 2005 and 2011 were the result of explicit confidence motions presented by the opposition.

Note this comment;

Successful votes of no confidence in the 20th century were all the result of a loss of supply . . .

That means parliament voted on the annual federal government budget and it failed. Budget votes are always non-confidence votes. The 2011 vote was a fascinating example of how parliamentary democracy actually works. The Liberal party lost to the Conservatives after a long reign as the party in power. They immediately started scheming to get back in through a non-confidence vote on the budget but they didn’t have the votes. So they formed a coalition with two other minority parties to band together to force a non-confidence vote on the Conservative party government. They even had a formal signing ceremony. I was stunned, as apparently was the rest of Canada, by political stupidity of it. Coalitions are entirely normal but the Liberals were so desperate to get back in they made a pact with the devil. The coalition involved three parties, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Bloc Québécois. No problem with the NDP, a normal left-wing party but the Bloc was totally toxic as a coalition partner. The bloc is a separatist party formed for the sole purpose of forcing the break-up of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois (BQ; French pronunciation: [blɔk kebekwa], "Quebecer Bloc") is a federal political party in Canada devoted to Quebec nationalism and the promotion of Quebec sovereignty. . . . .

The party seeks to create the conditions necessary for the political secession of Quebec from Canada and campaigns actively only within the province during federal elections. The party has been described as social democratic and separatist (aka "sovereigntist").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

So the Liberals, in their desperation to get back to running Canada, held a public signing ceremony agreeing to share power with a party having as its primary goal the destruction of Canada. Surprisingly this was not an agenda the Canadian electorate endorsed. As per agreement the three parties, with a majority of the parliamentary votes between them, went after prime minister Harper and forced a vote holding the prime minister in contempt of parliament for failing to disclose the full financial details of his “tough-on-crime” legislation, corporate tax cuts and plans to purchase fighter jets. Essentially just a trumped-up excuse for a vote based on issues nobody cared about. They won the vote 156 to 145 and, as a result, the government resigned. However the liberals had badly misjudged the electorate. This was our fourth federal election in seven years and people were sick of it. They blamed the coalition for forcing a totally unnecessary election on Canada for no reason except a lust for power and the resulting election was a disaster for both the Liberals and the Bloc. The Liberals, who had 77 seats in parliament before the election, held only 34 after, its lowest seat count in the history of the party. The Bloc went from 47 seats to 4. Both party leaders resigned.

2 – The prime minister of Canada, or a provincial premier just decides to call an election – In theory the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures (at least some of them) are required to hold to a four year term. In practice the prime minister of Canada and the premier of British Columbia can call an election any damn time they want. As Wikipedia explains it;

When introducing the legislation (Burnaby note – legislation setting up a fixed four year term), Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody." However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion", the change effectively altered only the maximum duration of a parliament by ensuring that it ends no later than October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement, while leaving the possibility of an earlier end unaffected.

This situation was illustrated by the dissolution of parliament at Prime Minister Harper's request on September 7, 2008. This led Democracy Watch to initiate proceedings in federal court against the Crown-in-Council, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, challenging the decision to call an election prior to the fixed election date. Judge Michel M.J. Shore dismissed the matter, saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers," since "[t]he remedy for the applicant's contention is not for the Federal Court to decide, but rather one of the count of the ballot box". The court effectively found that the fixed election dates were not binding on the prime minister or legally enforceable by the courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_ele ... _in_Canada

Governments often call elections for no better reason than they currently have a high approval rating and think they can exploit it to improve their position. Here in British Columbia our provincial government is headed by the NDP. Until recently it was a minority government but had a formal signed agreement with the Green Party that essentially made the NDP a majority party. The agreement included a clause that the NDP would not call an election during its four year term. However the NDP currently holds a very high approval rating because of their professional handling of the Covid crisis. Premier Horgan deferred completely to doctor Bonny Henry, head of our health services, and she ran our Covid response. She’s done a great job as both her and the government’s approval ratings have shown. Seeing this as an opportunity Horgan violated the agreement, called an election last October, and won a solid majority. Horgan did this even though he himself had, as a campaign promise, said he would put in legislation stopping the government from calling early elections and British Columbia’s four year fixed limit was enacted by Horgan’s government after he was elected.

In theory neither the British Columbia provincial government nor the federal government can call elections before the end of their fixed terms just to exploit favourable conditions however we're discussing politics not an honour system so, effectively, our governments cannot call for an election before the end of their terms unless they want to. But if they decide they want one they just do whatever the hell they want.

Let's use Donald Trump as a hypothetical to put this in an American perspective. He became president in January 2017. If he was bound by the same electoral rules that we have in Canada he could not, as he cannot now, extend his term past January 20, 2021. But if some time prior to this, say in September 2019, he thought the political situation at that time looked particularly favorable for his chances of re-election, he could have called for a new election while staying in power until it was decided. Had he won that election the clock would start on a new four year term beginning the day he was declared the winner. If the favor and approval of the electorate continued to shine on him he could, like FDR, continue doing this until he dropped dead in office because Canada has no term limits.

Two other critical differences between our systems. We have no prime minister-elect. If a government loses an election the winning party takes over immediately. And we don't have your staggered system of Congressional elections where half of the House runs every two years and Senators have a six year term with one third facing election every two years. When a federal or provincial election is called everybody has to run for office again except for our federal senators who are appointed, not elected. And they stay that way until the next election.

As a bonus we don't have your endless electoral cycles. Political campaigns last less than two months. Outside of that nobody except political obsessives thinks about the next election.

[Psam]

Just to add to that, there’s section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Con ... .html#h-58

Then section 52(2) describes exactly which documents the Constitution is comprised of, and the link above has a table of contents to look for the schedule at the end of the act where those documents are listed.

So any legislation passed by any elected body is “inferior legislation”. The Constitution has superior force over it.

The Canada Elections Act is inferior legislation. Here’s the relevant section:

56.1 (2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

If that conflicts with the Constitution in any way, then the Constitution of course prevails, and maybe there’s no way for it to possibly conflict with section 3 of the Charter (part of the Constitution), which states that every citizen has the right to vote and be a candidate, but just keep in mind what I wrote in my last comment above where I quoted the Supreme Court of Canada saying that section 3 is construed to mean more than just the literal words of the section. The purpose behind section 3 is “effective representation”, and any inferior legislation that is found by the SCC to be in contravention of this purpose in principle can be ruled inconsistent by the Court.

What Burnaby49 wrote is more pertinent but I just thought you might be interested in some more details.

[Psam]

Oh and one more thing.

If the prime minister asks the Governor General to dissolve Parliament prematurely to the set four year term and call an election, the Governor General can refuse the prime minister’s request.

My understanding is that the Governor General has the role of acting Commander in Chief of all servants of the Crown and is required by constitutional mandate that predates 1867 (but is included by virtue of the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that Canada’s government was created to emulate the British government) to avoid showing any preference or supportive stance of any kind to any party over any other party.

Personally, I think for the Governor General to agree to call a premature election at the prime minister’s request is going back on that constitutional mandate. It allows the prime minister to use state mechanisms to give the governing party an advantage over opposition parties. That is exactly what the Queen’s (and her appointed viceroys‘) mandate is supposed to guard against. Same goes for the Lieutenant Governor of BC allowing Horgan to wait until just after the Green Party had elected a new leader, with still little public visibility, to call an election so that the new leader wouldn’t have time to establish a public presence and pull in more votes for the Green Party than Andrew Wanker did. Or Weaver or whatever his last name was.

So as much as I hate periodically, pseudo-democratically selected renewable oligarchies, I certainly would hate them less if the Queen’s appointed representatives would do their stupid jobs. I’d prefer democracy though. It’s such a shame so many Canadians are so opposed to democracy.

[Psam]

But seriously though, there should be a law that every time you go to a restaurant and order a meal, the restaurant should be required to keep track of which menu item you ordered, and then for the next four years, whenever you return to that restaurant, you should not be allowed to have anything other than that same menu item.

We should learn from how elections work and apply the very sensible principles behind them to other aspects of our lives. It’s part of living in a healthy democracy. It’s good for a citizen’s awareness of the operation of democratic principles in their every day lives.

[Burnaby49]

I left out a step in the process to avoid throwing unneeded complications into my answer. Technically neither the prime minster of Canada nor the premier of a province can call an election. We're a constitutional monarchy so only the monarch, long-serving Liz, can actually call a federal or provincial election in Canada. Since the Queen has better things to do than get constantly caught up in the intricacies of Canadian politics she offloads the chore to her representatives here in Canada. Federally that's the Governor General, provincially each province has a Lieutenant Governor. You can read the role of the Lieutenant Governors here if you're so inclined;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenan ... ional_role

In general their jobs are ceremonial, opening flower shows, having teas, opening parliament and reading the speech from the throne in place of Liz. But they can, on rare occasions, be significant players. They approve federal and provincial legislation on behalf of the Queen. Without this assent legislation cannot be passed however assent on legislation is never withheld. The only known time this happened was in Alberta in the 1930's when the provincial government tried to pass legislation encroaching on the federal power to regulate banks. The federal government petitioned the monarch of the time to withhold assent. He did and the legislation was never passed.

Of more relevance to this discussion is that legally only these Crown representatives can call elections. So when British Columbia premier John Horgan decided to have an election last October he didn't call it himself. He went to the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia and requested the Crown's permission to hold an election. Permission was granted and the Lieutenant Governor, not the premier, actually authorized the election. However, as with legislation, permission is very rarely denied, the Crown essentially just rubber-stamps whatever the government requests. But legally permission can be denied. so this comment by Psam is quite correct;

If the prime minister asks the Governor General to dissolve Parliament prematurely to the set four year term and call an election, the Governor General can refuse the prime minister’s request.

but irrelevant since the Governor General will invariably give assent. Technically we are ruled by the Crown but the Crown through her representatives but Liz, and preceding Monarchs, have had more sense than to try throwing her weight around, use it and you'll lose it. It's an archaic and complicated system but it more or less works so we let it be.

You can see why I didn't include this constitutional lecture with my prior posting.

[Pottapaug1938]

It might be time to move Psam's posts to the Word Salad Bar.

[wserra]

I, for one, would be reluctant to do that.

We started a thread on him, and his posts haven't been abusive or repetitive or profane. Granted, they don't make a lot of sense. But unless his posts violate some rule, a person about whom we begin a conversation should have a free rein to respond.

[wserra]

The point I made was that I believe the most compelling ethical justification for imposing a form of governance upon an individual is if the individual has not publicly and resolutely chosen an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to instead consensually have her or his conduct constrained.

I'm not sure that I'm correctly parsing that rather convoluted sentence. I'll take a shot, though.

Justification for governments? Quite a subject for an internet bulletin board. Are you aware that political philosophers have been struggling with that since the ancient Greeks? If you're not so aware, I suggest that you begin by reading Locke's Second Treatise of Government. If you are so aware, I suggest reading it again. Locke begins by examining the average life without a government - in essence "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", building on Hobbes' "state of nature".

I agree that someone who rejects a current govt but proffers no alternative is not worth listening to. But that doesn't make the converse - someone who does proffer an alternative is justified in rejecting what exists - true. So no, I don't agree that a protestor's absence of an alternative is the best justification for imposing a government on him. In fact, I think that's pretty silly. Locke posits that the best justification for govt - what makes a govt "legitimate" - is the amelioration of the bad parts of the state of nature.

A few sentences don't come close to doing Locke justice. But this is an internet bulletin board.

[Psam]

I have studied summarisations of Locke’s work in a political science course, along with Mills, Hobbes, and a few others. However, I have not actually read the treatise you are referring to, so thank you for the suggestion, I will read it.

However, just looking at a summary online of Locke’s work, I found this quote from it.

“Adam was NOT given absolute authority over the world and his children by God
“Adam's heirs, therefore, did not have this authority
“No one can claim rights since it is impossible to identify Adam's heirs today.”

It is obviously pretty asinine to believe that there is any truth to the story of Adam and Eve, and someone who indicates an actual belief in some validity to this story is demonstrating at least some extent of diminished credibility.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in any religion in history is the belief that the ability to create a universe can only be retained by an ethically infallible entity. This is an unproven assumption, and yet the story of Adam and Eve implies that this assumption is self-evident. That is why it is possible for the character named “God” in that book to be such an unethical, tyrannical, ignorant, pathetic moron and yet still be treated as ethically infallible by his brainwashed, irrational, simpleton followers and adherents.

Nonetheless, I’m sure there are other things in the book worth reading so I will try to find it.

I did not say that the absence of an alternative method of writing and adjudicating laws is the only ethical justification for imposing a form of governance upon an individual, just that it is the most compelling ethical reason.

A simple way of illustrating this is to consider the hypothetical situation where two different groups of people prefer two different complete and concise methods of writing and adjudicating laws by which each of their members consents to have their conduct constrained. These two groups of people live interspersed in the same land. By Locke’s reasoning, if one of these two groups of people decides to subjugate the members of the other group under their own form of governance, there is no injustice in this whatsoever.

It is this claim of absolute absence of any injustice in treating consent as an absolutely inapplicable principle of governance that I take issue with. I don’t believe it is as conclusive as anyone, Locke the Bible dummy included, contends.

[Psam]

And wserra, if I may suggest some reading (a lot less, though) to you, have a look at the Appendix of this Charter http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/charter.pdf on pages 7 to 9 and tell me if you find any inaccuracies in the definitions given there.

If you find it to be flawlessly, conclusively ethical to impose a form of governance upon a person who prefers an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to instead consensually have her or his conduct constrained, without the slightest onus to even compare the prevailing form of governance to the preferred alternative, then perhaps there is nothing I can do or say to change that, but at the very least you might consider the possibility that there is at least some shred of ethical fallibility in your position, and the Appendix of the above linked Charter Is the best effort that I am aware of to portray the contention of potential injustice in this disregard for consent as an ethical principle.

[wserra]

It is obviously pretty asinine to believe that there is any truth to the story of Adam and Eve, and someone who indicates an actual belief in some validity to this story is demonstrating a clear lack of credibility.

I don't see how I can have a productive discussion of political philosophy with someone who would discount the writings of one of its most influential thinkers due to that person's sharing the literal biblical interpretation overwhelmingly accepted in his milieu, 17th Century England.

Have fun with the windmills, Psam.

[Burnaby49]

A political science major with his own theory of government. Of course, that explains a lot.

[Psam]

After my last comment, I realised that in the same way that Locke was forced to publish anonymously because of the danger he could be subjected to for the contentiousness of his views, he of course could also have realised that failing to invoke some form of biblical reasoning, however absurd he may have found the book, would cause the vast majority of the indoctrinated populace including people in positions of authority to dismiss his views offhand without any consideration whatsoever.

I just said the inclusion of biblical reasoning diminishes his credibility somewhat. I didn’t say it eliminates it altogether. If he was just trying to make his book accessible to the Bible idiots so that they might consider some merits to his theories, that is quite a pragmatic approach.

[Burnaby49]

I, for one, would be reluctant to do that.

We started a thread on him, and his posts haven't been abusive or repetitive or profane. Granted, they don't make a lot of sense. But unless his posts violate some rule, a person about whom we begin a conversation should have a free rein to respond.

Agreed. While the voting theory he's squandered years trying to promote is idiotic he is arguing a sincere belief in an alternate method of determining how democratic governments should be chosen. As valid a topic as most of the rubbish promoted by the targets of our UK members, or my Canadian targets for that matter. Did Russell Porisky's tax theories make more sense? If we imposed the impossibly high standard of actually making coherent sense as a basis for inclusion or exclusion of a topic on Quatloos I'd have to abandon most of my sovereign postings.

Psam has at least made the effort to take his theories to court to get them legally sanctioned. His requested court order was entirely self-serving, an order specifically exempting him from whatever laws, such as paying income tax, that he didn't feel like obeying. That's an absolutely classic OPCA goal. It's been minister Belanger's wet dream for decades and the underpinning of many of Menard's schemes. Freeman Valley anyone?

And no, psam, I don't need a 3,000 word explanation that you weren't trying to avoid paying taxes because you planned to pay them to your own little make-believe government instead of the actual existing governments.

Also a word of warning Psam. Religion is a prohibited topic on Quatloos. If you don't want to believe in any religion that's fine, I don't either, but don't discuss it here. Your harping on about how people who believe in religion are morons is getting to the point that I'm considering imposing a temporary ban on your posting if you continue it. Politics is also a banned topic but your postings are essentially about an alternate theory on the method of determining governments rather than your opinion of politics or politicians so you haven't, as yet, stepped over that line.

[eric]

As a bonus we don't have your endless electoral cycles. Political campaigns last less than two months. Outside of that nobody except political obsessives thinks about the next election.

Raises hand, plus a second one for my wife. We're not particularly political but every few months Elections Canada touches bases with us, often to conduct some sort of inane survey, such as type of pencil to use when marking ballots. (Should we keep using the kindergarten school pencils for example) The major purpose of the emails is to check that we are still able to be contacted should an election be called. Our friend Psam may not realize this with his eternal cycle of discussion and voting on everything but voting in a secure manner takes an effort as our friends to the south can attest. In Canada, where federal elections are performed in an old school manner, there are roughly five hundred permanent employees, some of them just on a ten year stand-by contract, paid when you work. On election day that increases to 235,000 paid employees which includes myself, and they have to do it with two months notice. The overwhelming majority of these employees only work for one day.

Anyways, back to Psam arguing that he only has to obey certain laws, when he feels like it, and only after deep reflection and consultation and a vote of course.