Edmund Burke once said, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." (Burke 36) A country 's constitution needs mechanisms in place to make amendments because as progress is made the landscape of a country is altered. Times change and people change. Constitutions are stories nations tell about themselves (Adams 3), how they wish to protect their citizens and how it must "provide more than a legal blueprint for governance" (Adams 2) In Eric Adams article, Canadian Constitutional Identities, he explains that a Constitution has to do more than be the highest law of the land, for it to work it needs to "be felt as well as comprehended, a constitution that engaged the intellect, but, more importantly, stirred …show more content…
The Harper government agreed that because it would only alter the powers of the Senate that then it should only have to be passed federally. (458) The government ruled against them and said they would need to use the general amending formula. (459) Abolishing the Senate would fundamentally change Canada 's constitutional structure by removing its bicameral system (Synder 4) In Synder 's summary of the case she states, "the Prime Minister may make significant changes to the powers of the Senate and the number of senators, it "[can]not strip the Senate of its powers and reduce its number of members to zero." (Synder 4) In doing so, it would change the complexity of the Parliament of Canada and possibly hinder the …show more content…
In class, we have briefly discussed Western alienation from being poorly represented in a Senate that is heavily loaded with Ontario and Quebec interests. Pierre Trudeau had a vision that all of Canada would be united as one and that no matter what province you are from, you are Canadian, and you will receive the best quality of life. If only it were that simple, The West has been taken for granted and as a Senate reform option, there should be more representation from Western provinces. In fact, there is a reform called the "Triple E-Senate", which would "provide better representation for Canadians who lived outside of Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and provide a check on the extraordinary powers that our system confers on majority governments" (Kline 1) "Triple E" stands for "Elected, Effective and Equal" (Gibson 17) From that definition one can interpret that the West is looking to change the selection process of Senators. Instead of nominations, they would rather the Senators are voted in, which could subject them to the Government of the day. The "Triple E Senate wishes to have Western provinces interest and ideas at the heart of the executive branch. Canada uses those provinces for oil profits but rarely do they have as much representation as Ontario based Senators. "As it stands, Quebec and Ontario each have 24 seats — the same as the four Western provinces combined. Atlantic Canada, with just 7% of the population, holds a disproportionate 29% of
1. What legislation did the provincial government propose? Why did it invoke the notwithstanding clause? The provincial government proposed the sexual sterilization Act which enabled the Alberta Eugenics Board to sterilize 2822 wards in order to “improve” the human race through parent selection.
The French-Canadians in Lower Canada did not trust the British, they didn’t speak English, and they found British rule without democracy difficult to accept. Control of the colony was in the hands of an oligarchy of merchants and ex-army officers. English seemed to have most of the advantages which made the French feel like their culture was being attacked. Discrimination against the French, unequal taxation and lack of power within the government became the main focus of reform in Lower Canada. The French-Canadians preferred a democratic government.
Canada has two legislative bodies in the parliamentary system, one is the Senate of Canada which is constituted by the appointed members. Secondly, is the House of Commons, which is made up of elected officials. The Senate is consisted of 105 members that are recommended by the Prime Minister and the appointed by the Governor General. The members of the Senate can be made up of business people, lawyers, doctors, hockey players, and many more, because of the variety of experience from the individuals of senators gives a better understanding of the people they represent and of the problems that Parliament must try to solve.
The constitution has saved our country from being like England/Britain and has saved us falling apart. The constitution has kept us from ending up like other country that are formed off the strong being in charge and surviving and the weak dying or ending up like a monarchy or a dictatorship like other country are and the constitution everyone in our country has survived and no more
The Senate: “The upper chamber of Parliament where there are 105 members who are appointed until age 75 by the Crown on the advice if the prime minister.” (Rules of the Game pg 106)The original Senate that was created in 1867 had only originally 72 seats. It was created to counter balance representation population in the House of Commons, although in recent years the Senate has become to reinforce representation of groups that have often been underrepresented in parliament, examples; Aboriginals, visible minorities and women. There has been a huge debate’s on whether Canada should keep the Senate. The people all over Canada have mixed opinions on if we should keep the Senate or not.
Compare the history of how we got to our current constitution to something else and why that is so? A constitution is literally a rule book. It states many different things in it. It sets up major governing institutions, assigns institutions their given power, and places explicit and implicit control on power that given to them. A constitution establishes literal legitimacy, it’s the real deal.
As a head of our government, the leader of our nation and the individual that Canadians look to for change and prosperity, the Prime Minister (next to the Governor General of Canada) holds the greatest amount of governing power. Democratic parliamentary systems like the one in Canada, compromise with their general population in order to give the people a voice within government. It is important to understand how the parliamentary system works in order to understand what administrative powers the Prime Minister executes and whether they are effective or not. The presence of a responsible government ensures Canadians that the governing body is an elected assembly instead of having a monarch in power. The Prime Minister, citizens of Canada, as
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
The Senate in Canada should be abolished Introduction: Canada senate is a part of legislation institution in Canada, which represents the interests of upper class people. Different from America, it is not produced by election but directly-nominated by the premier and appointed by governor. Senate, governor, and the House of Commons are like three legs of a tripod which constitute the congress and legislation system in Canada. Senate undertakes the responsibility of proposing expostulation to governor and cabinet, which acts the role of supervision and restriction. Senate played critical role when Canada established federal government in 1867, the diversity of senators warrants the smooth convey of popular will to governors and legislators coming from different ethnic group and social status.
The Constitution was a document that was written by our Founding Fathers. It defines what our government is and what it does. It is the basic blueprint for all the laws in the country and it provides the three branches of the U.S government the power it needs to rule this nation effectively. But the Constitution wasn’t always how it is now, it used to be called the Articles of Confederation and it had many problems that are no longer present in our current Constitution.
316). Rocher draws upon the same historical timeline as Trudeau when he alludes to the period of modernization in Quebec after WWII, however he focuses on the distribution of autonomy and responsibility to provinces for managing their own institutions separate from the central government (p. 316). The transfer of health care, education, social services, and economic development was representative of the pragmatism of the constitution and the sharing of jurisdictions between regional and central governments (p. 316). Although there is no mention of the role of nationalism by Rocher, he thoroughly mentions the role the central government plays in ensuring national unity, he describes the position of the federal government as “having to consult, coordinate and, inevitably, compromise in the face of mounting federal-provincial conflict”, this is connected to the discussion of compromise between the central and regional governments described by Trudeau (p.
DBQ Essay The United States Constitution is a document that or founding fathers made in order to replace the failing Articles of Confederation (A of C). Under the Constitution, the current government and states don’t have the problems they faced when the A of C was in action. The Constitution was created in 1788, and held an idea that the whole nation was nervous about. This idea was a strong national government, and the Federalist assured the people that this new government would work. The framers of the Constitution decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments because the A of C had many problems, there was a need for the layout of new government, rights, and laws, and there was a need for the Federal
A constitution is the fundamental law by which a nation or a state is governed and organized. It establishes the framework of government, delegates the powers and duties of governmental bodies, and defines the relationship between the government and their citizens. Texas current constitution was adopted in 1876, and since then Texas voters have approved more than 467 amendments to this document. The word “amendment” is defined as the act or process of changing the words or the meaning of a law or document (constitution). Throughout this essay I will explain the rules for amending the Texas Constitution, the attempts made at constitutional reforms during the 1970s, explain why constitutional reforms were attempted and why it ultimately failed.
This corrupt system as some refer to it has many people confused and wondering what benefits are for Canadians. A specific case of the Charter being ineffective is the case Arsenault-Cameron v. Prince Edward
“The purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society.