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.
This is true of Canada's constitution also. Perhaps not in those exact words (i.e. "Parliament shall pass no law..."), but the Canadian constitution does explicitly grant powers to the Parliament and to the provinces, and neither can invade upon the other's turf, as it were.
It is true that Canada learned from the American experience in drafting its 1867 constitution. Rather than having a catchall Tenth Amendment ("Rights not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people" (paraphrased)), which was vague as to what exactly was a state's right; Canada explicitly enumerated what rights the federal government and the provincial governments had. See ss. 91-95 inclusive of the Constitution Act 1867. This, however, did not preclude court challenges as to who was responsible for what as time and technology went on. For example, no mention was made, in the 1867 document, as to who was responsible for nuclear power, aviation, or the provision of cable television. As a result, Canada (like the US) has had its share of court proceedings that decide constitutional questions.
The Canadian constitution does tell the reader that "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." (Constitution Act 1982, s. 52(1).) What this means is that if a province or Parliament tries to (or does) pass a law that is ultra vires (i.e. outside of) its constitutional jurisdiction, then anyone can apply to a court to make their case to have that law nullified. (Constitution Act 1982, s. 24.)
In short, both Parliament and the provinces must act within the bounds of Canada's constitution. Neither can override the constitution.
Correct in both cases. Our constitution consists of a few pieces of paper (most notably, the Constitution Act 1867, and the Constitution Act 1982 (which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)). Both of these apply to the federal government and all the provincial and territorial governments.
But then there are the unwritten provisions, and these tend to confuse a lot of Americans. No slight intended to our friends to the south, but while their constitution describes how to (for example) elect a President, ours contains no such description of how to elect a Prime Minister. Indeed, the office of "Prime Minister" is not mentioned once in our constitution. Nothing is said about how a government falls on a no-confidence vote, nor does anything set a period of time for a government leader to stay in power, unlike the US and its "four-year presidential term" rule (though it is stated that no Canadian government may last more than five years without a general election). It is stated that no law comes into force until it receives Royal Assent (via the federal Governor-General or the provincial Lieutenants-General), though--as part of an unwritten rule--this assent is never withheld if the bill has passed the Commons and Senate federally, and a Legislature provincially. To withhold Royal Assent would trigger a constitutional crisis.
Instead, what we use is the simple and benign phrase, "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" (Constitution Act 1867, preamble). Basically, this means, "the Canadian government will operate as the UK government does, and Canadians will be afforded the rights that UK citizens have." From this one phrase, we draw on 900 years of the British tradition, all the changes, all the constitutional and legal events, all the rights, and so on.
And in case certain of those unwritten rights are not being respected, Charter s. 26 offers us relief: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada." Now, there's a nice catchall.
Pretty much sounds the same and I think Australia's is also quite similar. Makes sense considering we were all British colonies. The US constitution is intentionally vague. It allows for lots of debates. The most heated regards secession. No where in our constitution does it allow for nor prohibit secession so most Americans rely on the Texas vs White ruling by the Supreme Court for that. Problem is, that was regarding Texas at that time. This is a debate which will go on forever. There was once a suggestion to add a prohibitive amendment to the constitution to state that states cannot secede. I believe it was John Adams who successfully opposed it. If you guys to our north ever hear mutterings of this and wonder why it comes up periodically, this is why.
When it is economically to the advantage of rich and powerful men to form a military/industrial complex, a threat can always be found, as well a citizenry to cower in fear of that threat. And forum posters to bang the drum.
who believe in a vengeful, interventionalist god and a strangely libertarian, punitive, and capitalist Jesus, both whom they view as having specifically blessed the United States among all other nations.
hey meritocracy works so a capitalist jesus is not that bad
Quote:
The reality is that since the end of WWII until now, the USA by itself is more powerful than all of Europe combined. Even now, Europe (excepting Russia) would not be able to defend itself for more than a few days if the Muslims decided to band together and attack. Europeans are unarmed personally and their militaries are weak and underfunded. You are very dependent on US military might and willpower for your safety...I sure as heck wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
I have to disagree just got my ass kicked(about an hour or so ago and their sole reasoning was "so you like fire") in europe and I would say you are wrong though will I go for seconds well 3rd time is the charm and this was the third time and for the first 2 and including the third I went alone the fourth well depends on my mood to get a hiding but my patience towards my fellow man is wearing thin towards the individuals who were there and participated on thrice occasions
to me and to anybody who manages to get in and get away from a fight laws of physics are applicable of course
"Any crash you can walk away from is a good crash!" launchpad mcquack
well in the immortal words of douglas adams "good luck"
And Britain's system of government is still as it was in 1215??
I am not sure what you mean by this statement, as a lot has changed since 1215 including civil wars, a bill of rights, the curtailing of the power of the monarchy and in more recent centuries, universal suffrage and proper respresentation.
In terms of the Magna Carta the American Bar placed a monument at Runnymede in Surrey to commemorate the importance of the Magna Carta and it's influence on human rights legislation and freedon under the law.
The 800th Anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta will take place in 2015 at Runnymede in Surrey and include people from the UK, US and other countries.
I am not sure what you mean by this statement, as a lot has changed since 1215 including civil wars, a bill of rights, the curtailing of the power of the monarchy and in more recent centuries, universal suffrage and proper respresentation.
In terms of the Magna Carta the American Bar placed a monument at Runnymede in Surrey to commemorate the importance of the Magna Carta and it's influence on human rights legislation and freedon under the law.
The 800th Anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta will take place in 2015 at Runnymede in Surrey and include people from the UK, US and other countries.
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.
Pretty much sounds the same and I think Australia's is also quite similar. Makes sense considering we were all British colonies. The US constitution is intentionally vague. It allows for lots of debates. The most heated regards secession. No where in our constitution does it allow for nor prohibit secession so most Americans rely on the Texas vs White ruling by the Supreme Court for that. Problem is, that was regarding Texas at that time. This is a debate which will go on forever. There was once a suggestion to add a prohibitive amendment to the constitution to state that states cannot secede. I believe it was John Adams who successfully opposed it. If you guys to our north ever hear mutterings of this and wonder why it comes up periodically, this is why.
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.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 01-10-2014 at 12:53 AM..
Pretty much sounds the same and I think Australia's is also quite similar.
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.
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.
