No the Dominion of Canada has nothing to do with it
Yes, it is true that "Dominion of Canada" has nothing to do with it; at Common Law of the former Dominions of the Commonwealth of Nations, the term "Dominion" had a very specific meaning that derived more from submission to the British Crown, rather than a polity characterized by warlike imperialism. As to the use of the word in American common law, the term "Old Dominion" is still used to refer to the U.S. State of Virginia--which, of course, is guaranteed a republican form of government under the United States Constitution. Therefore, the term "Dominion", in its British imperialist context, is inappropriate as applied to the Dominion of Star Trek.
The term refers most generally to a polity comprising remote territories, governed from a distant imperial motherland, therefore is likely meant to suggest that the Dominion is similarly governed (but there the similarity ends) and that the Dominion is spread across a large volume of the Gamma Quadrant. Even more generically, it is a biblical reference: "...and God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth..." (Gen. 1:28 KJV) (and no, I am most certainly not a Jesus freak; secular academic biblical study is an entirely different endeavour from religious scholarly study of the Bible, particularly in a proselytizing context) ProfessorTrek 06:48, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, since the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the name "Dominion of Canada" has not been legally applicable, under either British or Canadian law. The formal name of the Canadian nation is, simply, "Canada". The term "Dominion Day" to refer to the Canadian national holiday fell into disuse after 1980 (it was, even then, nostalgic, similar to the use of the patriotic song The Maple Leaf Forever) when the Canadian national anthem changed to "O Canada" from "God Save the Queen" ("God Save the Queen" remains the Royal Anthem, and is always paired with the rendition of O Canada when used in Canada, such as during Royal tours of the Realm). The Canadian Constitution was patriated and codified by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1982 and the entire British North America Acts, 1867-1982, are now statutes of the Parliament of Canada and not the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and are renamed the Canada Acts, 1867-1982. And yes, there is a supreme Bill of Rights, called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, similar to how the SCOTUS interprets our Constitution. And yes, Canadian common law does have persuasive authority in American jurisprudence (that means American judges can take judicial notice of it and apply it where it is consistent with American law) because it has the same origins as American common law, the Constitution of which is interpreted similarly, rights of free speech, against unlawful search and seizure, assembly, press, etc. Of course, after 235 years, there are massive differences, in form, if not in substance.
That's all well and good but how is that relavant? I
>>It is obviously relevant, of course, because of the substance of the question. The question asked about "Dominion of Canada", which is necessarily in the context of Canada, thus a substantial explanation of why "Dominion" here does not refer to "Dominion of Canada" is required--and, of course, is relevant. "Dominion" equals "Dominion" unless and until both its former and latter definition are explicated and distinguished. Then and only can "Dominion" not equal "Dominion". "Dominion" does not not equal "Dominion" simply because a person makes the bare assertion that "Dominion does not equal Dominion". But once "Dominion" in the context of Canada is explained, and "Dominion" in the context of Star Trek is explained, then and only then has due process resulted in proving that "Dominion" does not equal "Dominion". However, I certainly can understand how when a person believes that a bare assertion is all that is necessary to make what the assertion says "true", then nothing is relevant that would lead to or result in a contrary conclusion as to whether not the bare assertion made is "true". Unfortunately, those who wish that "relevance by individual fiat" equals "relevance" are pathetically mistaken. ProfessorTrek 08:50, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Actually the question could have been answered w/o a lot of the history canadian history >>>Oh? Why? That is precisely the kind of inadequate bare assertion that does not constitute an answer
>>>I'll try to put it in simple terms...the "I know you are but what am I" or the "I'm rubber and you're glue" assertions, answers and justifications are what I am referring to. ProfessorTrek 10:26, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
the word dominion is a common word (in grammar/def/) so it is possibe but there is no way to know for sure. The same goes for the bible refferrenceDarkseid253 08:33, August 14, 2011 (UTC)