Liberal democracy, a SHAM?

[bk59]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. But let's see if we can see the point I was trying to make. Here is what I originally said:

Anyone, including the government, can take whatever position it wants in the courts. The government doesn't need the Charter to do that.

Note - does not NEED the Charter. You claimed that they did need the Charter:

Yes it does.

As, for instance, with the case of SSM.

But take a real look at what your quoted passage is saying:

The Government believes that same-sex couples should have equal access to marriage

Full stop. You see the Charter as this evil document that allowed SSM. But it didn't. The government could have passed that law with or without the Charter. You can see that yes, they say that this Act will uphold the Charter equality rights. But that is not the same as saying that the Charter was NEEDED to pass the Act.

This leads into your next claim about the US vs. Canada.

Not quite, as the president can veto bills passed by Congress, thus preventing them from becoming law.

In turn, by a two-thirds vote, Congress can override the president’s veto.

The president would really have to pull a bummer for this to happen.

Canada is still a 'banana republic' in comparison.

You have described HOW Congress can pass a law. Yes the President can veto it. But Congress can still pass the legislation. And when it comes to determining what legislation to pass, the Congress can decide to pass ANYTHING IT WANTS as long as it abides by the Constitution. This is THE SAME AS in Canada. Parliament can pass anything it wants as long as it abides by the Constitution.

You do love the US system though. You keep saying how democratic it is compared to Canada. How do you feel about the electoral college then? Do you think it is democratic that when electing a President, the US system allows electoral college voters to vote any way they want irrespective of the wishes of the people? Do you think it is democratic that it is possible for the candidate with the most votes to lose the presidency?

[Leafless]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. But let's see if we can see the point I was trying to make. Here is what I originally said:

Note - does not NEED the Charter. You claimed that they did need the Charter:

But take a real look at what your quoted passage is saying:

Full stop. You see the Charter as this evil document that allowed SSM. But it didn't. The government could have passed that law with or without the Charter. You can see that yes, they say that this Act will uphold the Charter equality rights. But that is not the same as saying that the Charter was NEEDED to pass the Act.

You are being silly.

They used the PRINCIPLES of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' to create the the 'Civil Marriage Act'.

This leads into your next claim about the US vs. Canada.

You have described HOW Congress can pass a law. Yes the President can veto it. But Congress can still pass the legislation. And when it comes to determining what legislation to pass, the Congress can decide to pass ANYTHING IT WANTS as long as it abides by the Constitution. This is THE SAME AS in Canada. Parliament can pass anything it wants as long as it abides by the Constitution.

Where is this written as part of Canada's democratic process.

In the U.S. it is part of democratic 'checks and balances'.

The system of checks and balances is a basic feature of the United States government. The mechanism of checks can be seen through five basic institutional features of the system.

The first check comes from the fact that different branches of the government have overlapping authority, so each branch can act as a limit on the other. For example, the president can veto an act of Congress. A two-thirds majority in Congress can then override the president’s veto. The president appoints major federal officials, but only if the Senate by majority vote agrees. The president administers the affairs of the federal government, but Congress controls the federal budget. Congress enacts laws, but the courts interpret their meaning and may even strike down a particular law if it violates the Constitution. However, Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution to overturn a court’s rulings; these amendments must then be ratified by the states. In addition, court decisions can be overruled by higher courts and, later, by judges who might choose to reconsider the issues. Furthermore, the president appoints the judges, subject to the Senate’s approval. However, federal judges have lifetime appointments, so the next president and Congress cannot simply remove them from office. But if the judges (or certain other officials, including the president) commit crimes, Congress may impeach them and then remove them from office.

A second check comes from the division of power within the legislative branch. Each house of Congress provides a check against the other, because both must agree on the exact wording in a bill in order to pass it into law. This check forces legislators to consider issues and constituencies that do not affect them directly.

Third, Congress can regulate many local and state activities, especially when there are conflicts between one state and another. But Congress has limited powers and is made up of representatives elected from the states, so the states in turn have a check on national affairs.

The fourth check is on the power of lawmakers themselves. They are accountable to the people through elections; their power is not based on a birthright or social status, as it is in monarchal or aristocratic political systems. In the United States system, if lawmakers take actions that are unpopular, they can be removed from office in the next election. Moreover, lawmakers are elected in different ways. A member of the House of Representatives is elected from a single district within a state, while a member of the Senate is elected by all the voters in a state. The president is elected by all the nation’s voters, and this national election requires a winning candidate to address diverse constituencies. The varied methods of electing political leaders bring assorted political perspectives and interests into the government, and these can be a check on each other.

The fifth check on the government emerges from the civil liberties protected by the Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedoms of association and assembly. These rights ensure that if the government takes improper or unpopular actions, newspapers and other media can bring the actions to public attention. Citizens can speak out against the government and try to effect change. This check on government power is informal but spread throughout the population.

Not all parts of the United States government have checks and balances. The Federal Reserve System, for example, has few institutional limits on its authority to set monetary policy.

Where checks and balances are in place they are not always efficient. The power of different elements of the political system to block each other can lead to gridlock if no political interest has enough power to prevail over the others. In 1997 and early 1998, for example, the Senate refused to take action on many of President Bill Clinton’s appointments of new federal court judges. Although the Senate’s power to approve or reject federal court nominees is one of the key checks on presidential authority, the dispute between Clinton and the Senate meant that there were not enough federal judges to handle the court’s workload. But the system of checks and balance was not designed for efficiency or speed, but rather to prevent misrule and tyranny.

What democratic 'checks and balances does Canada employ???

You do love the US system though. You keep saying how democratic it is compared to Canada. How do you feel about the electoral college then? Do you think it is democratic that when electing a President, the US system allows electoral college voters to vote any way they want irrespective of the wishes of the people? Do you think it is democratic that it is possible for the candidate with the most votes to lose the presidency?

Well first you have to understand the reason for the electors (electoral college).

Firstly electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President.

They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped.

Secondely-The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.

Electoral Votes by State 2001 - 2010

State Votes State Votes State Votes State Votes

Alaska 3 Nebraska 5 South Carolina 8 Virginia 13

Delaware 3 Nevada 5 Alabama 9 Georgia 15

Montana 3 New Mexico 5 Colorado 9 North Carolina 15

North Dakota 3 Utah 5 Louisiana 9 New Jersey 15

South Dakota 3 West Virginia 5 Arizona 10 Michigan 17

Vermont 3 Arkansas 6 Maryland 10 Ohio 20

Washington, D.C. 3 Kansas 6 Minnesota 10 Illinois 21

Wyoming 3 Mississippi 6 Wisconsin 10 Pennsylvania 21

Hawaii 4 Connecticut 7 Missouri 11 Florida 27

Idaho 4 Iowa 7 Tennessee 11 New York 31

Maine 4 Oklahoma 7 Washington 11 Texas 34

New Hampshire 4 Oregon 7 Indiana 11 California 55

Rhode Island 4 Kentucky 8 Massachusetts 12

This is democracy in action.

[bk59]

Note this part of your quote:

Congress enacts laws, but the courts interpret their meaning and may even strike down a particular law if it violates the Constitution.

This is the same as in Canada. Congress can pass whatever laws it wants so long as it does not violate the US Constitution. Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants so long as it does not violate the Canadian Constitution. You have claimed that the Charter has been used as the basis for laws like those respecting SSM. This is incorrect. The Charter only limits what Parliament can do, it does not enable them to do anything new.

Other quotes are obviously applicable to Canada as well:

if lawmakers take actions that are unpopular, they can be removed from office in the next election.

Well first you have to understand the reason for the electors (electoral college).

Firstly electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President.

They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped.

...

Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

...

This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote.

...

This is democracy in action.

How is that democracy? In a democracy the people should be able to pick who they think is a qualified person for the position of president, not some body that can decide on its own - potentially against the will of the people.

In a democracy no one has the right to come in and say, "Sorry, everyone has just been duped. I'll tell you who should really be the President." Why have a general election at all if that is what will happen?

You think that it is democratic that the votes of some voters are worth more than others? Democracy requires that every vote be equal.

Finally, you acknowledge that one candidate can win the presidency by receiving less votes than the other candidate. How is that even remotely "democracy in action"? If democracy is based on the will of the people, then the person with the support of the most people should win.

Neither Canada nor the USA is perfect. But you should probably examine your hatred of Canada and your hero worship of the USA. Canada is not a totalitarian regime by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is the USA perfect.

[Leafless]

This is the same as in Canada. Congress can pass whatever laws it wants so long as it does not violate the US Constitution. Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants so long as it does not violate the Canadian Constitution. You have claimed that the Charter has been used as the basis for laws like those respecting SSM. This is incorrect. The Charter only limits what Parliament can do, it does not enable them to do anything new.

I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say or what your point is.

The Charter is not an explicit document and it takes courts to figure out if a right is applicable to a certain situation, NOT PARLIAMENT.

You still have not shown me where it says in our constitution that parliament can pass laws that do not violate our constitution. Where is it written?????

Other quotes are obviously applicable to Canada as well

If it so obvious cite where all the safeguards are written in Canadian law?

How is that democracy? In a democracy the people should be able to pick who they think is a qualified person for the position of president, not some body that can decide on its own - potentially against the will of the people.

This is a pre-selection process to ensure the country won't get stuck with a tyrant. Citizens still get to exercise their democratic right and vote. All states have agreed to the electoral college or state electors voting this way.

If that process was utilized here I am certain PM's like Trudeau and Chretien would have been rejected initially as unstable and dangerous or any PM coming out of Quebec.

In a democracy no one has the right to come in and say, "Sorry, everyone has just been duped. I'll tell you who should really be the President." Why have a general election at all if that is what will happen?

Again you fail to grasp its preliminary objective relating to the electoral college.

You think that it is democratic that the votes of some voters are worth more than others? Democracy requires that every vote be equal.

They are equal and gives proper representation to all states big or small.

Finally, you acknowledge that one candidate can win the presidency by receiving less votes than the other candidate. How is that even remotely "democracy in action"? If democracy is based on the will of the people, then the person with the support of the most people should win.

You are confusing two separate voting processes, one to give all states the same advantage relating to the number of votes cast and the citizen's (popular vote). Bottom line is all states like the system.

Neither Canada nor the USA is perfect. But you should probably examine your hatred of Canada and your hero worship of the USA. Canada is not a totalitarian regime by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is the USA perfect.

I harbour no hate for Canada but admire the protection relating to abuse of power and the much more democratic system the U.S. offers along with individual state constitutions giving its citizens a much more democratic involvement in government decisions that affect them.

The U.S. is not perfect but IMO is SUPERIOR compared to the alternatives offered by other countries.

[bk59]

The Charter is not an explicit document and it takes courts to figure out if a right is applicable to a certain situation, NOT PARLIAMENT.

Every law is interpreted by the courts. Not just the Charter. Every court case is about interpreting how the law applies to a certain situation. Welcome to our legal system.

Incidentally, this is the same in the USA as in Canada. And the same in the UK and many other places around the world.

You still have not shown me where it says in our constitution that parliament can pass laws that do not violate our constitution. Where is it written?????

First, "still"? When did you ask me to show you that the Canadian constitution allows Parliament to pass laws that do not violate the constitution?

Second, you make it seem like this is a big deal. No offense, but this is pretty obvious stuff. But you wanted a cite, and unlike you I can provide one. Let me introduce you to a little thing called the Canadian constitution (Section 91 - Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada):

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces;

If it so obvious cite where all the safeguards are written in Canadian law?

Well, the elections act for one will deal with the quoted text that I copied in my last post. As for the rest, you need to understand something about Canadian law (and the common law system in general). Some of the safeguards are in the Constitution. Some are in statutes. And some are found in case law - that is decisions of the courts that are just as binding. So it would be almost impossible to survey all of the appropriate areas of law. If you have a particular concern, then I suggest you voice it as a particular issue. But asking for "all the safeguards... in Canadian law" is not realistic. Canadian law safeguards everything from the maximum amount of time allowable between elections, to giving people the right to sue the police if the police conduct a negligent investigation.

If you want exact equivalents to the US system you won't find them. Because we have a different system. We do not have a Congress or a President. But this does not mean our system is less valid.

This is a pre-selection process to ensure the country won't get stuck with a tyrant. Citizens still get to exercise their democratic right and vote. All states have agreed to the electoral college or state electors voting this way.

No, that is not correct. The electoral college votes AFTER the popular vote on election day. They do not pre-select anyone. Citizens can exercise their right to vote, but at the end of the day, the electoral college can ignore those votes. So how is that a democratic system?

If that process was utilized here I am certain PM's like Trudeau and Chretien would have been rejected initially as unstable and dangerous or any PM coming out of Quebec.

Again you fail to grasp its preliminary objective relating to the electoral college.

Actually, you have failed to grasp the basic concept of the electoral college. It does not pre-select anything. Besides, both Trudeau and Chretien made it through the party selection process. Then they both made it through (several) elections where they were voted into office by the citizens of Canada. Your characterization of any Prime Minister coming out of Quebec as unstable and dangerous is simple bigotry.

They are equal and gives proper representation to all states big or small.

First you say:

Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

And now you say that the votes are equal? Make up your mind. Which is it?

You are confusing two separate voting processes, one to give all states the same advantage relating to the number of votes cast and the citizen's (popular vote). Bottom line is all states like the system.

No, I am not confusing two systems. You see two systems when in fact there is only one. The citizens vote. Their votes decide who goes to the electoral college. The electoral college votes to decide who becomes President. Citizens can vote for Person A. But the college can vote for Person B. That is not democracy. At least not democracy in the way that most people understand it. Perhaps you use a different definition.

I harbour no hate for Canada but admire the protection relating to abuse of power and the much more democratic system the U.S. offers along with individual state constitutions giving its citizens a much more democratic involvement in government decisions that affect them.

Canada has many protections against the abuse of power. Public officials are not tyrants. See the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis if you want. You say you have no hate for Canada, but it sure seems like you do. You think the government is totalitarian, you clearly want Quebec out of the country, you seem to despise the Canadian constitution.

[Canadian Blue]

So in conclusion, the United States is a perfect example of democracy...

Canada, is a place where totalitarian leaders take refuge attempting to ram their agendas down people's throats by getting elected by the same people.

[Leafless]

Every law is interpreted by the courts. Not just the Charter.

Your self righteous condescending teaching mode and personal criticism is becoming intolerable and it seems you refuse to debate properly thus I will be no longer wasting my time with a pin head.

READ AND HEAD-

Making laws through legislation can be a complicated process. Suppose, for example, the federal government wanted to create a law that would help control pollution. First, government ministers or senior public servants would be asked to examine the problem carefully and suggest ways in which, under federal jurisdiction, a law could deal with pollution. Next, a draft of the proposed law would be made. This text would then have to be approved by the Cabinet, which is composed of members of Parliament chosen by the Prime Minister. This version would then be presented to Parliament as a "bill", and would be studied and debated by members. Bills only become laws if they are approved by a majority in both the House of Commons and the Senate, and assented to by the Governor General in the name of the Queen.

Incidentally, this is the same in the USA as in Canada. And the same in the UK and many other places around the world.

First, "still"? When did you ask me to show you that the Canadian constitution allows Parliament to pass laws that do not violate the constitution?

You said it, why don't you be cordial and include it since you like teaching so much.

Second, you make it seem like this is a big deal. No offense, but this is pretty obvious stuff. But you wanted a cite, and unlike you I can provide one. Let me introduce you to a little thing called the Canadian constitution (Section 91 - Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada):

Well, the elections act for one will deal with the quoted text that I copied in my last post. As for the rest, you need to understand something about Canadian law (and the common law system in general). Some of the safeguards are in the Constitution. Some are in statutes. And some are found in case law - that is decisions of the courts that are just as binding. So it would be almost impossible to survey all of the appropriate areas of law. If you have a particular concern, then I suggest you voice it as a particular issue. But asking for "all the safeguards... in Canadian law" is not realistic. Canadian law safeguards everything from the maximum amount of time allowable between elections, to giving people the right to sue the police if the police conduct a negligent investigation.

Stop trying to cover for a total lack of democratic rights and safeguards against democratic rights because Canadians don't have any.

Our only democratic government right is the right to vote for our member of parliament our SO CALLED representative.

If you want exact equivalents to the US system you won't find them. Because we have a different system. We do not have a Congress or a President. But this does not mean our system is less valid.

It is less valid as we have no real 'CHECKS AND BALANCES' and we have no separate provincial Charters like the states do with their state constitutions.

We are an OPPRESSED PEOPLE at the mercy of the federal government.

No, that is not correct. The electoral college votes AFTER the popular vote on election day. They do not pre-select anyone. Citizens can exercise their right to vote, but at the end of the day, the electoral college can ignore those votes. So how is that a democratic system?

Read and Heed

When voters choose a presidential ticket including the presidential and vice presidential candidate, they are actually voting for electors pledged to this ticket. In all but two states, the ticket that wins a plurality of the votes - in other words, more votes than any other candidate-- wins all of that state's electors.

Your characterization of any Prime Minister coming out of Quebec as unstable and dangerous is simple bigotry.

If Canada had any kind of safeguards to protect Canadian national interest, 'NO PM' from the province of Quebec would be accepted. This would be virtually impossible as it presents a national conflict of interest.

You think the government is totalitarian, you clearly want Quebec out of the country, you seem to despise the Canadian constitution.

No, I do not despise the Constitution but it could stand with improvement. I despise the ammendment that includes the Charter.

The federal government is totalitarian as it does not recognize that Canada and Quebec represent two separate interest and does not serve the interest of the MAJORITY in a Canadian nationalistic manner.

IOW, the federal government is UNDEMOCRATIC and flaunts its authority as it chooses in a similar fashion to a 'BANANA REPUBLIC'.

[guyser]

Its clueless time !

Isn't guyser who is a minority, always or mostly trying to protect other minority concerns from what he or she views as unwarranted attacks from the horrible 'White' majority or others, with an array of mostly unwarranted senseless or tit for tat replies.

Wrong #1

Is this not an instance where a minority is trying to control and protect minority interest on this board and shame the majority from speaking out with cheap shots.

Wrong #2

We do not need nor want 'guyser' censorship interfering with others free speech relating to patriotic majority concerns.

Wrong #3.

At least you are consistent . Wrong of course, but consistently that way.

[ScottSA]

Its clueless time !

Wrong #1

Wrong #2

Wrong #3.

At least you are consistent . Wrong of course, but consistently that way.

A leftist argument. Concise, to the point, and as powerful as a lame hamster.

[guyser]

A leftist argument. Concise, to the point, and as powerful as a lame hamster.

Wow, stupid and ignorant as Leafless, all righties must be dumb as bricks then ....is that what you want to be lumped in with?

Good job scotty, jump in the leafless bed. That will do wonders for your intellect.

You want to join him and tell me I am of a "minority" , a pink chardonay swilling homo , an immigrant, lets see what else......the purveyor of not one rational thought......

That for you would be quite the step down. Be my guest.

[M.Dancer]

.........a pink chardonay swilling homo , an immigrant, lets see what else......the purveyor of not one rational thought......

....you like chardonay too? I love it but I am being coerced by this years Pinot Grigios......

[guyser]

....you like chardonay too? I love it but I am being coerced by this years Pinot Grigios......

LOL , not not really, I was just told I like it.

I like red, easy on the tannins, had a really nice fullbnodied red last night , a Cab, but damn if I did not get the name.

It was served after I finished my naked grape. Ever try an unoaked red? Price was right too. (that means cheap)

[bk59]

READ AND HEAD-

Your quote was a nice summary of how a law gets passed. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the reality of how a law is interpreted AFTER it is passed. That is done by the courts. For every law. In every common law country in the world.

You said it, why don't you be cordial and include it since you like teaching so much.

I did include the quote.

It is less valid as we have no real 'CHECKS AND BALANCES' and we have no separate provincial Charters like the states do with their state constitutions.

We are an OPPRESSED PEOPLE at the mercy of the federal government.

The Constitution lays out federal and provincial responsibilities. It's all there in one document. What else are you looking for that the state constitutions have that we (allegedly) do not? Your definition of oppressed must be quite unique. There are legitimately oppressed people in this world. Canadians are not among their number.

When voters choose a presidential ticket including the presidential and vice presidential candidate, they are actually voting for electors pledged to this ticket. In all but two states, the ticket that wins a plurality of the votes - in other words, more votes than any other candidate-- wins all of that state's electors.

And then those electors are free to vote for whoever they want. They can ignore the wishes of the people. Haven't we been over this? That is not particularly democratic.

The federal government is totalitarian as it does not recognize that Canada and Quebec represent two separate interest and does not serve the interest of the MAJORITY in a Canadian nationalistic manner.

IOW, the federal government is UNDEMOCRATIC and flaunts its authority as it chooses in a similar fashion to a 'BANANA REPUBLIC'.

How does Canada & Quebec represent two separate and incompatible interests? Quebec was a founding province of Canada. Your personal feelings aside, there is no incompatibility there.

The sad part is, if Canadians agreed with you, you would see parties elected that support your position. But because Canadians do not agree with you, you label Canada as undemocratic.