The Next Canadian Government

[dimsum]

The Australian parliament is much closer to ours and from what I can tell, each state, regardless of population, gets 12 senators.

Their senators are also elected, so their system is a mash of the standard Westminster system and the US one.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Their senators are also elected, so their system is a mash of the standard Westminster system and the US one.

The House of Lords is a historical artifact of the Westminster system, it's more of a bug than a "feature."

Canada's constitution was the first draft, if you like, of constitution writing for the officials in Whitehall; they had precious few models. They got progressively better at the task when they dealt with (helped with) Australia, New Zealand, India, Germany and so on.

Personally, I wish they had decided to draft a handful of laws for the new Canadian "dominion,' dealing with things like the division of powers between the provinces and the federal state, the courts, and so on and left the constitution, per se, unwritten so that it would be, indeed, "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom."

But it was the 1860s and everyone was more than just a bit nervous about unbridled, popular democracy, so the Senate was created to provide a chamber of "sober second thought" in case John A. Macdonald and his confreres got carried away.

 

[lenaitch]

And it’s up to the business (in his examples) to decide what they want.

Hell, even in “2A freedom” USA, people can’t just carry whenever they want. A business can restrict firearms within its premises, even in an open carry state. Is that discrimination because the 2A folks can’t open carry in a business that doesn’t allow it?

I’ll go one step further. If a business does something that is against the majority of the people’s wishes (my example was the bakery in the US who wouldn’t bake a cake for an LGBT something or other), that’s their call. But, then they don’t get to call discrimination if they lose business, gets bad press, etc because of it.

Assuming US constitutional jurisprudence is similar to ours, their Constitution binds the State, not the individual.

That Colorado bakery won at SCOTUS in its appeal of a state Civil Rights Commission ruling.

 

[Good2Golf]

And when the Senate shuts down a bill supported by the house, how long will it be before the same cry of "unfair" starts up again, because the bumpkins are ruining things for the majority?

Maybe the Senate no longer has the mandate to approve/deny passage of a certain category of legislation?

 

[Furniture]

Maybe the Senate no longer has the mandate to approve/deny passage of a certain category of legislation?

Effectively meaning that Ontario and Quebec could run roughshod over the rest of Canada even more than they currently can?

I don't see how any of the other provinces would sign-off on that.

If we were starting over with a fresh slate, I can see where some of the ideas presented could work. It's just that we a have a couple hundred years of history to factor into any changes that could/would be made.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wait!!!

20% of the population generates 30% of our Country's economic output!? And I bet they don't get a 30% return on their tax dollars though . I thought I read up-thread that this was impossible? Say it isn't so!!

I'm cool if the people down South just leave what goes on up here to their imagination. The South-East Asians don't seem to have a problem with moving up here. 90% of the truckers in the North running the transcontinental route are from South-East Asia. The vast majority of people I'm hiring now are South-East Asians. I like them, they work hard and have a good character.

They are going to be the ones that profit from our immense natural resource wealth.

I wonder what it would be if all the mines and pipelines that were requested were authourized?

 

[Kirkhill]

Re the Senate and Equal representation

My goal would be a Senate that would protect the rights of Spud Islanders and First Nations from being trampled by the populations of Ontario and Quebec.

Not that the Islanders would dictate to the "majority" but that the majority would no dictate to the minority.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Wait!!!

20% of the population generates 30% of our Country's economic output!? And I bet they don't get a 30% return on their tax dollars though . I thought I read up-thread that this was impossible? Say it isn't so!!

I'm cool if the people down South just leave what goes on up here to their imagination. The South-East Asians don't seem to have a problem with moving up here. 90% of the truckers in the North running the transcontinental route are from South-East Asia. The vast majority of people I'm hiring now are South-East Asians. I like them, they work hard and have a good character.

They are going to be the ones that profit from our immense natural resource wealth.

The BC forest industry enters the chat

Time Traveller: Sikh millworkers helped power B.C.'s timber industry in the early 1900s​

Time Traveller: Sikh millworkers helped power B.C.'s timber industry in the early 1900s

Workforce was divided along racial lines, with 'non-white' workers given undesirable jobs

www.nsnews.com

 

[brihard]

Not that the Islanders would dictate to the "majority" but that the majority would no dictate to the minority.

Depending on the issue and the parliamentary math, that can quickly become the same thing, if a small minority with a mathematical veto blocks something the vast majority want, and which is not inconsistent with constitutional division of powers or the Charter.

 

[Kirkhill]

Depending on the issue and the parliamentary math, that can quickly become the same thing, if a small minority with a mathematical veto blocks something the vast majority want, and which is not inconsistent with constitutional division of powers or the Charter.

It can be but it shouldn't.

My simplistic view is that the holder of the title to the land has primacy. Everybody else is a supplicant. And that includes the Federal Government on Provincial or First Nations land. There are dispute mechanisms in place to manage disagreements.

I believe in a bottom up society with the Feds serving the nation(s), not commanding it (them).

Kirk - Presbytery - Synod - General Assembly - Moderator.

 

[Furniture]

Kirk - Presbytery - Synod - General Assembly - Moderator.

Never.

Keep your presbyterian silliness out of my government, the Baptist way is best.

congregation > deacons > pastor > convention.

The person at the pulpit serves at the pleasure of the deacons, who serve at the pleasure of the congregation.

Politicians serve the people, not the other way around.

 

[FJAG]

Politicians serve the people, not the other way around.

- Oh. Sorry. You were talking theory and not actuality, weren't you?

My bad. You're right --- in theory.

 

[Kirkhill]

Never.

Keep your presbyterian silliness out of my government, the Baptist way is best.

congregation > deacons > pastor > convention.

The person at the pulpit serves at the pleasure of the deacons, who serve at the pleasure of the congregation.

Politicians serve the people, not the other way around.

Taters and Tatties

Bottoms Up!

...

Just for clarification in the Scottish system the local congregation of the Kirk elects elders, who hire ministers, who are sent to the local "convention" known as the Presbytery. Presbyteries send delegates to regional Synods and the Synods send delegates to the General Assembly. The General Assembly elects a Moderator to chair the meeting. The General Assembly is the highest authority.

 

[Kirkhill]

- Oh. Sorry. You were talking theory and not actuality, weren't you?

My bad. You're right --- in theory.

The reason for this

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

And this

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

....

Ideally the government, being aware of dire consequences, would keep them in mind and not let the situation deteriorate to that extent.

....

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 

[FJAG]

Taters and Tatties

Bottoms Up!

Isn't that Neeps and Tatties?

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't that Neeps and Tatties?

Baith best servet champit!

 

[FJAG]

Ideally the government, being aware of dire consequences, would keep them in mind and not let the situation deteriorate to that extent.

You know I've got an axe to grind on that, and I know that I'm against the position of the vocal minority on this.

There are two USSC decisions on that. The first, US v Miller by a full court in 1939, holds that the 2nd amendment allowed congress's right to regulate a sawed off shotgun because the evidence did not show that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . .". This creates a collective rights theory of self defence. That was the continuing law in the US until DC v Heller, in 2008, which concerned a ban on handguns and which was a 5 to 4 decision of the court with the five being the usual gang you'd expect them to be. Heller supported the individual rights theory of self defence.

I can't help but think that if the framers of the 2nd amendment were to see an interpretation permitting individuals to keep assault rifles in today's society they'd be spinning in their graves. Statutory interpretation means that every word in the legislation has to be given meaning. It's difficult to give meaning to "well regulated militia" in the Heller decision. It's not just that a "militia" is needed. It needs to be a "well regulated" one. And "well regulated" leads to collective defence and that leads to defence against outside threats and not the fictitious proposition that the frames of the constitution contemplated some future internal overthrow of the democratic republic that they had just created. The key elements to protect the citizens from the threat of the government becoming oppressive is the citizens' rights to elections of their government and a supreme court to evaluate laws.

To this point in time, 12 justices (8 in Miller, 4 in Heller) out of 17, support the collective rights theory. This parallels the public in general where 64% of the public in the US favours stricter gun controls. It is time that the US citizenry overthrow the tyranny of the minority that has unleashed the proliferation of uncontrolled firearms and insist that the term "well regulated militia" be given the meaning intended by the framers of the constitution.

$0.02

 

[Brad Sallows]

The prefatory clause of the 2A illuminates. It is not an exclusive limitation on the operative clause. Part of the guidance it gives is that "arms" includes "military arms". There is no time/technology limit.

"Well-regulated" just means "capable of meeting its purpose" or "properly functioning/functional". It has nothing to do with being legislatively regulated.

Having just overthrown their domestic order on the grounds of tyranny, the framers reasonably understood the purpose of allowing people to arm included defence against internal threats to liberty.

Most countries in which onerous illiberalism flourishes to some degree managed to essentially disarm their peoples first.

 

[Kirkhill]

You know I've got an axe to grind on that, and I know that I'm against the position of the vocal minority on this.

There are two USSC decisions on that. The first, US v Miller by a full court in 1939, holds that the 2nd amendment allowed congress's right to regulate a sawed off shotgun because the evidence did not show that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . .". This creates a collective rights theory of self defence. That was the continuing law in the US until DC v Heller, in 2008, which concerned a ban on handguns and which was a 5 to 4 decision of the court with the five being the usual gang you'd expect them to be. Heller supported the individual rights theory of self defence.

I can't help but think that if the framers of the 2nd amendment were to see an interpretation permitting individuals to keep assault rifles in today's society they'd be spinning in their graves. Statutory interpretation means that every word in the legislation has to be given meaning. It's difficult to give meaning to "well regulated militia" in the Heller decision. It's not just that a "militia" is needed. It needs to be a "well regulated" one. And "well regulated" leads to collective defence and that leads to defence against outside threats and not the fictitious proposition that the frames of the constitution contemplated some future internal overthrow of the democratic republic that they had just created. The key elements to protect the citizens from the threat of the government becoming oppressive is the citizens' rights to elections of their government and a supreme court to evaluate laws.

To this point in time, 12 justices (8 in Miller, 4 in Heller) out of 17, support the collective rights theory. This parallels the public in general where 64% of the public in the US favours stricter gun controls. It is time that the US citizenry overthrow the tyranny of the minority that has unleashed the proliferation of uncontrolled firearms and insist that the term "well regulated militia" be given the meaning intended by the framers of the constitution.

$0.02

I disagree... (quel dommage )

My sense of the origins of the Second Amendment are to be found in "the sword in the thatch" and the longbow ordinances.

The longbow ordinances of England required every man and boy to spend hours competing with bows and arrows that they could make themselves from local materials. That became the back bone of the defence of England, as well as its expeditionary capability. But it also put the local lords on the same level as the King.

And it put the local bowman on the same level as the Lord. Every English Lord was at risk from his own population.

...

In Scotland, Highland and Lowland, the sword in the thatch was emblematic of the constant tension between local and central authority.

In a country of families and clans and tight little valleys it was difficult for Edinburgh, or Carlisle, or Dunadd, to impose order. The government's men were no better armed than the Tcheuchters and Reivers and often a lot less organized and certainly less motivated. If the locals couldn't be arsed to actually oppose the King's Men then they simply hid their weapons in their thatched rooves and waited out the storm. If things got dire, or prospects looked better, then they would reach for the sword in the thatch.

After watching Jimmy the Sixth and First outlaw clans in the highlands and borders, send vagrants to the pits to become slaves for two centuries, parcel off others to the army to fight for cathollics and protestants on the continent, send whole families, like the Grahams into hostile lands in Ireland and despatch others on leaky ships to colonies in Virginia and Newfoundland where they starved, they were no inclined to leave the King with the upper hand.

That was reinforced by the Jacobite Wars that continued through to Culloden.

The government was not to be trusted.

 

[FJAG]

It strikes me that there is a tad of misinterpretation there.

The practices relating to English longbows was one of the crowns need to raise armies for defence and foreign gambits as seen by this statement by Edward III in 1363

Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery.

As to the Scots. You seem to gloss over the fact that they were a conquered people and constantly in a state of rebellion against a "foreign oppressor." It wasn't their own government that they bore arms against - it was foreigners supported by internal lackeys. There is no comparison to their situation and either the modern US one or the 1791 state of affairs.

It's quite easy to spin up one of many historical situation to support a modern theory. The question is, "Do they make sense or bear relevance in today's world."

I'm now taking a ten hour break from social media to get some work done.