Howdy rob,

You wrote above,

I disagree with your interpretation.

Fine, the Dominion of Canada, is a free country.  The "footnote" was not the basis of my arguement.   Constitutional Law does not afford the retroactive re-naming of terms within a Constitutional Act.   Each term that is repelled must be specifically indicated.  Each Clause that is replaced, must be explicitly indicated.

Your grasp of Constitution Law and procedures is complete ill-informed.  Do you have any idea the Constitutional Chaos that would be created in any present day independent country, that has used as a basis English Common-Law as a template? (i.e., the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand)

Do you?

As well, where the **** did you learn that "Canada had no Constitution until 1982?"

Oi.