Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That supreme court, in most cases though, is itself guided by the "supreme" piece of legislation; the provisions of the constitution itself.
Yes but you can't make ammendments with out first scrutinising what you are ammending. There are also problems in relations to constitutional interpretation, with some in the US believing the gun lobby hides behind out dated and even misinterpreted legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1098
But yes, Aussies like having their hands firmly on the reins. Handing over effective control of the constitution to politicians or appointed judges would be, to use a common phrase, "un-Australian".
The Australians also make it compulsory to vote in general elections, although I am not sure if referendums are also compulsory.
I don't think most people in Britain can be bothered to vote in most local and European elections, never mind having to start voting on constitutional amendments should we finally draft a written constitution.
The Australians also make it compulsory to vote in general elections, although I am not sure if referendums are also compulsory.
Referendums are compulsory too, as is voting in state and territory government elections. All states/territories other than SA, Tas and WA also require you to vote for local government elections.
Nobody here can claim to be excluded from the political process...
I meant that while historical documents like the Magna Carta of 1215 do exist, there is no one document, or cluster of 1 or 2 documents that collectively articulate the constitution of the United Kingdom, defining how that societal entity will be governed. This is a "prettied up", perhaps a little defensive, articulation of the point.
An extract from that: "It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law." I don't think that would pass muster for a constitution in most modern nations.
It wouldn't in the US that's for sure. No one is above the law or capable of making laws away from the checks and balances that are in place.
Interesting, and thanks for the info. I have not read the Texas v. White decision, but I will--as you may be able to tell, I like studying constitutional law; Canadian mainly, but I have written papers that bring the US constitution in as well, so I have studied that document and some of its caselaw as well.
Having read the Federalist Papers, I'm doubtful that the framers of the US constitution were intentionally vague just for the possibility of debates (IME, constitutional debates and court challenges cost a lot, in both time and money). More likely, they were looking to draft a constitution that the states would buy into. If it involved a few compromises on what exactly were states' rights, well.... At any rate, I will agree that while admission of a state to the US still follows the procedure outlined in the Northwest Ordinance 1787, there is nothing to tell us the procedure for allowing a state to secede.
We in Canada have already faced a Supreme Court court challenge over secession: see Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217. Generally speaking, as it is a long and complicated decision, the answer from the court was that, while it is not mentioned in the constitution, a province could secede if (a) a clear majority of the province's residents wanted it; and (b), if the question regarding secession was clear and understandable. Other conditions would follow, such as negotiating over Canadian federal government properties in the seceding province, military bases, and the like. Military assets were of particular interest, as during the 1995 referendum, Bloc Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard indicated that they would be claimed by the government of a newly-independent Quebec. Wikipedia states:
As a Canadian taxpayer who helped to pay for those jet fighters, I would not want to see them turned over to a (now) foreign government at no charge. Assuming that Quebec could take possession of them unilaterally (which I doubt it could--at least not without a fight), I would expect Quebec to pay for them.
Perhaps it is best that there is no constitutional right allowing a state or province to secede from the Union or Confederation, respectively. It allows for reasoned debate, for a procedure to be established, and for a precedent for the future to be set. More importantly; it allows for a lengthy procedure, "sober second thought," as it were, and for the people to consider what they really want before they move forward impulsively.
Interesting about Canada's constitutional system. Thanks for that info from you.
Australia's is dissimilar enough from Canada's (and the US) to be viewed as a distinct style of document. For example, there is one Act that is intended to be "the constitution" of Australia, although there are a small number of other Acts with constitutional significance; one being The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and the other Australia Act 1986. Its seems to be a much smaller source of constitutional law than is the case in Canada, with for example the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Except that isn't true, the British Parliament (the Queen being mainly a figurehead) can not pass legislation that contravenes legislation such as the European Convention on Human Rights, EU Law or other ratified international law or treaties.
If you examine the European Convention on Human Rights, it has a raft of Articles, just as the American Constitution does, and it is enforceable by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. European Law taking judicial precedence over the national laws of individual member states, which must be ignored if they interfere with European Law.
One of the advantages of a written constitution is that it can be clearly articulated how that constitution can be revised and by whom. In Australia's case, that means putting those proposed amendments to the people by way of a referendum that must be passed by voters in a majority of states, and a majority of voters in the federation. In short, the people of Australia will determine how the nation is to be governed, not simply who will govern it.
I suspect that clarity is not present when a constitution is an amalgam of convention, common law, and historical documents.
In the US, constitutional amendments are pretty much entirely legislative. It first must get a 3/4 vote in congress then has to be ratified by 38 out of 50 states, mainly the state legislators.
Interesting about Canada's constitutional system. Thanks for that info from you.
You're quite welcome.
We in the Canada forum have put up with more than a few Americans who attempt to discuss Canadian constitutional issues, who are wrong in their understanding of Canada's constitution, and who base their arguments on assumptions and ignorance. It usually ends up as a trainwreck; they seem to feel they know all about our constitution, and refuse to learn from those of us who know better. It is refreshing to find one who seems willing to learn, so, Gentoo, if you have any more questions about Canada's constitution, don't hesitate to ask.
We in the Canada forum have put up with more than a few Americans who attempt to discuss Canadian constitutional issues, who are wrong in their understanding of Canada's constitution, and who base their arguments on assumptions and ignorance. It usually ends up as a trainwreck; they seem to feel they know all about our constitution, and refuse to learn from those of us who know better. It is refreshing to find one who seems willing to learn, so, Gentoo, if you have any more questions about Canada's constitution, don't hesitate to ask.
I am troubled to hear about the things you've said. Anyway, does Canada have anything like our 2nd amendment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
