According to https://bondsforthewin.com/. All elected officials sign an oath to uphold the Constitution in πΊπΈ Iβm not sure if they do the same for π¨π¦ Our Constitution protects the πΊπΈ citizen more than we know. 93% of school boards are elected, therefore bonded.
I suspected, will have to engage in digging it might have fruit dealing with some elected officials.
In Canada, (I may stand corrected) but the oath taken is to the crown. So, there's a reasonable chance they wouldn't be as vulnerable. (Ex: gun laws in Canada are meant to protect against any threat to the crown by the people).
I'm probably not the one to be speaking to this, because I was raised being told that the connection to the crown was wholly symbolic and a relic of a time past.
Then, there's a vote of no-confidence some years back and the governor-general (the queen's representative) suspended parliament for a couple of weeks. Tried the vote a second time, it gets shut down again... eventually parliament learned that the vote was not acceptable to the crown.
But that means she has real power over Canada, not just a symbol or a relic. Then learning how many of Canadians rights are subject to a "notwithstanding clause" that creates all sorts of circumstances where rights do not apply.
Frustrating to feel like a person needs a Ph.D. to feel that they can grasp the legal system they live under.
Is this relevant for Canada as well?
It seems more having to do with liability and may be optional. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/why-and-how-to-get-bonded-in-canada-2948240
According to https://bondsforthewin.com/. All elected officials sign an oath to uphold the Constitution in πΊπΈ Iβm not sure if they do the same for π¨π¦ Our Constitution protects the πΊπΈ citizen more than we know. 93% of school boards are elected, therefore bonded.
I suspected, will have to engage in digging it might have fruit dealing with some elected officials.
In Canada, (I may stand corrected) but the oath taken is to the crown. So, there's a reasonable chance they wouldn't be as vulnerable. (Ex: gun laws in Canada are meant to protect against any threat to the crown by the people).
Then, I assume, all members of the Commonwealth are subjects of the crown, not citizens of their country.
I'm probably not the one to be speaking to this, because I was raised being told that the connection to the crown was wholly symbolic and a relic of a time past.
Then, there's a vote of no-confidence some years back and the governor-general (the queen's representative) suspended parliament for a couple of weeks. Tried the vote a second time, it gets shut down again... eventually parliament learned that the vote was not acceptable to the crown.
But that means she has real power over Canada, not just a symbol or a relic. Then learning how many of Canadians rights are subject to a "notwithstanding clause" that creates all sorts of circumstances where rights do not apply.
Frustrating to feel like a person needs a Ph.D. to feel that they can grasp the legal system they live under.