people rejected the constitution

[g_bambino]

...corrupt, traitorous politicians stemming from Quebec, that voided any possibility of Canada gaining its true independence...

Wha?? Not more of this "Canada is still a British colony" bunk, I hope.

Edited October 29, 2007 by g_bambino

[mikedavid00]

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy.

I clicked around those links and such and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

The index claims that Canada is *more* democratic than the USA which is rediculous to say the least.

India may also be democratic as the site claims, but you can also be democratic AND politically broken at the same time.

Canada is non democratic AND politically broken just like India.

[mikedavid00]

wikipedia is not even recognized as a source of facts for university papers.

That's because of plagerism and 'ease of use' IMO. Not becuase the information is all false.

University loves to play the old game of making assignements a wich hunt of finding a difficult to find paragraph in the back of some textbook.

A texbook written by a friend or collegue of the professor, of course.

[Leafless]

Wha?? Not more of this "Canada is still a British colony" bunk, I hope.

How did you determine that out of this:

Regardless queenslave, you are not a slave to the Queen, but in reality a slave to corrupt, traitorous politicians stemming from Quebec, that voided any possibility of Canada gaining its true independence with the help unfortunately of English Canada who obviously lacked the desire to fight for the independence of Canada.[

I am pro-U.S. type constitution for Canada and do not agree with Quebec's traitorous ways to force Canada to retain Canadian type federalism for the sole reason to advance Quebec's nationalistic ideologies at the expense of English Canada.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Leafless

[jbg]

I am pro-U.S. type constitution for Canada and do not agree with Quebec's traitorous ways to force Canada to retain Canadian type federalism for the sole reason to advance Quebec's nationalistic ideologies at the expense of English Canada.

The US Constitution works not because of what's in it but in spite of what's in it. Basically, it's our extremely strong civil society that makes the US a great country.

The Constitution creates almost a "Rube Goldberg" type of mechanism under which each branch both relies upon other branches to effectuate their actions, and can stymie the other branches. The concept of judges belonging to the much-vaunted "independent judiciary", for example, enforcing their own rulings is comedic. Imagine the nonogenerian John Paul Stevens out there dressed up as a sheriff, forcefully integrating a school or other public facility, or driving protesters away from an abortion clinic?

Another, less humorous example involves the use of Presidential veto power, and the number of votes needed to cut off debate on legislation. Since it takes 60 votes to cut off debate, and 67 to override a veto, the passage of legislation without broad consensus is almost impossible. Except for budget items, it often takes 5 to 10 years for legislative or executive ideas to become law.

I love my country, and I love our Constitution. There is no shot in h*ll that any modern country would aim to adopt a "US-style" constitution.

[no queenslave]

How about a more likely explanation that Britain was, in 1867, not wealthy enough to fight a war with the US over British North America's trading with the US confederacy? Yes, I know that the civil war had ended two years earlier, but the wheels had been set in motion and, unlike a TV show, no one knew when the war was going to end. Also, isn't it possible that, having fought the costly Revolutionary War from 1774-82 that they didn't want an instant replay, and instead negotiated a solution that would give their commercial and military interests some access, in return for self-rule?

It's hard arguing with someone that doesn't know their history, i.e. misplaces the Meech Lake Accords with Trudeau.

Its hard arguing with someone that doesn't know Canadian history i.e. The b.n.a. act is irrelevant , but thinks the failures of trudeau is more important. How about the facts; insted of your dreams.

[g_bambino]

How did you determine that...

Quite frankly, from this: "...voided any possibility of Canada gaining its true independence." By that statement, you think Canada is not truly independent. What confuses me is what higher power you think Canada is still dependent on.

I am pro-U.S. type constitution for Canada and do not agree with Quebec's traitorous ways to force Canada to retain Canadian type federalism for the sole reason to advance Quebec's nationalistic ideologies at the expense of English Canada.

I don't believe the federal system we have was constructed in 1867 for the sole benefit of Quebec; the government and upper echelons of Lower Canada in those days were dominated by Scots, not Quebecois nationalists. I also don't know of any discussion prior to 1982 in which any provinces expressed a desire for a different kind of federation. Thus, I don't see how one province "forced" the other nine, plus the federal government, to retain anything against their will, at least in terms of constitutional matters. And, I don't think a US type of constitution would serve us any better; far too rigid and immovable by my view.

[jbg]

Its hard arguing with someone that doesn't know Canadian history i.e. The b.n.a. act is irrelevant , but thinks the failures of trudeau is more important. How about the facts; insted of your dreams.

Huh? I don't understand your post, but I did list you as one of my two favorite posters (link).

[g_bambino]

Its hard arguing with someone that doesn't know Canadian history.

Thank god you've finally come to realise at least that much.

[Leafless]

Quite frankly, from this: "...voided any possibility of Canada gaining its true independence." By that statement, you think Canada is not truly independent. What confuses me is what higher power you think Canada is still dependent on.

Quebec took advantage of Canadian federalism destroying its original concept by utilizing traitorous Quebec politicians who were basically continuing the battle of 'The Plains of Abraham' from the time of the 'Quiet Revolution' onward into Trudeau's era.

Trudeau was never serious in fighting Qubebec nationalism but actually strongly contributed to Quebec nationalism by promoting the Liberal brand of federalism resulting in the repatriation of Canada's constitution to be amended in part with totally undemocratic content favourable to Quebec, 'official languages', 'official multiculturalism' 'official bilingualism in Canada's public service with the promotion of bilingualism into provinces, who supposedly have control of their own language rights, but don't as they can be overridden federally, but left Quebec culture unaffected.

You ask what higher power I think Canada is still dependent on?

At the time of the 'Quiet Revolution' onward, none.

But this is the time English Canada refused to to stand up for federalism the way it was suppose to work and not to be taken advantage of Quebec's traitorous, aggressive ways to promote its nationalism and ideologies through the efforts of its provincial politicians e.g. Bill-101 and French Quebec PM's, IMO, especially Trudeau.

The only option English Canada had at that time was a revolution and it failed to take that stance to protect the rest of our Canadian federation from Quebec aggression.

You seem to not recognize the dysfunctional aspect at that time of our federal government. Liberals= Quebec by abnormally and undemocratically catering to Quebec's nationalistic ideologies.

It is of course questionable to what form of constitution English Canada would have assumed after this revolution but I believe it would have been in line to the type the U.S. has implemented due to its success with that type of constitution as provinces would not want to chance Canadian type federalism any further.

[no queenslave]

Thank god you've finally come to realise at least that much.

What has god got to do with it? The sovereign independent people of Canada have never drafted and ratified a constitution giving the federal government any of their powers.

Trudeau acted no different than Saddam, and should of met the same justice.

Since the people in a democracy is the source of all government power; and the people of Canada never ratified any constitution or amended constitution the government has no power other than assumed power like any other dictator. The politicians in Canada get their power from the queen, not the people. Slaves of the queen.

[jbg]

Trudeau acted no different than Saddam, and should of met the same justice.

Is "should of" Canadian grammar?

I am most offended by your comparison of Trudeau (a politician I happen to detest) to Saddam.

(Now warming up).

My people, the Jews, know firsthand the impact of dictatorships. We have suffered greatly at the hands of absolute monarchs throughout history. Matters reached a crescendo with the czars of Russia, the Communist dictatorship of Stalin and of course the horrors of the Holocaust.

(At full boil)It is simply obscene to lump in leaders whose policies you find distasteful with the dictatorial butchers of history. When you made these posts, you were not looking behind you for a Stasi or Gestapo officer. You go to sleep, safely and soundly every night, at least, certainly not worrying that CSIS will pluck you out of bed and lead you to the gas chambers. You, and I, are lucky to live in the freeest countries of history, and among the best and most transparently governed. Are our governments perfect? No. But ingrates like you get me mad. Very mad.

(End of rant).

[no queenslave]

Is "should of" Canadian grammar?

I am most offended by your comparison of Trudeau (a politician I happen to detest) to Saddam.

(Now warming up).

My people, the Jews, know firsthand the impact of dictatorships. We have suffered greatly at the hands of absolute monarchs throughout history. Matters reached a crescendo with the czars of Russia, the Communist dictatorship of Stalin and of course the horrors of the Holocaust.

(At full boil)It is simply obscene to lump in leaders whose policies you find distasteful with the dictatorial butchers of history. When you made these posts, you were not looking behind you for a Stasi or Gestapo officer. You go to sleep, safely and soundly every night, at least, certainly not worrying that CSIS will pluck you out of bed and lead you to the gas chambers. You, and I, are lucky to live in the freeest countries of history, and among the best and most transparently governed. Are our governments perfect? No. But ingrates like you get me mad. Very mad.

(End of rant).

when you have to call people like me ingrates is just a demonstration you have no valid evidence to support your government propaganda. At least Saddam did not try to fool the people he was running a democracy , like trudeau did with his lies and finger to the west.

The Canadian government is so transparent that it has no valid constitution; and uses a queen for its power to govern , claiming she is just a figure-head.

Any Canadian who cares to do some research , can easily understand the government is corrupt; and appoints corrupt judges to stay in power.

Canadians have not ratified a constitution so the politicians do not swear in to uphold a constitution ; but insted a figurehead. You have no control over any politician, and they do not represent you in any government.

Edited October 30, 2007 by no queenslave

[bush_cheney2004]

...I love my country, and I love our Constitution. There is no shot in h*ll that any modern country would aim to adopt a "US-style" constitution.

Nor should they, as the US Constitution is better understood and appreciated in the context of competing factions trying to survive as a fledgling democracy to the point of civil war. It has proven to be remarkably resilient and adapatable at the same time (with Amendments). It is no accident that Canuck debates often include comparisons to the much older republic and constitution to the south, even if it would never work in Canada.

Brazil has had nine constitutions since 1822.

[g_bambino]

The sovereign independent people of Canada have never drafted and ratified a constitution giving the federal government any of their powers.

Do you expect 32 million people to get together and write a constitution? That's what we elect representatives to the federal and provincial legislatures for, who then support, or don't support, a group of ministers appointed to minister the Queen, or Governor General, on how to exercise the Crown's powers.

One wonders how you'd handle things. A constitution is "drafted and ratified" by the sovereign, independent people of Canada (however that would happen). A new immigrant is granted Canadian citizenship. A child is born in Canada. Neither of them "drafted and ratified" the constitution they now live under. Are they then slaves to the rest of the Canadian populace? Ponder on that for a while.

Edited October 30, 2007 by g_bambino

[no queenslave]

when you have to call people like me ingrates is just a demonstration you have no valid evidence to support your government propaganda. At least Saddam did not try to fool the people he was running a democracy , like trudeau did with his lies and finger to the west.

The Canadian government is so transparent that it has no valid constitution; and uses a queen for its power to govern , claiming she is just a figure-head.

Any Canadian who cares to do some research , can easily understand the government is corrupt; and appoints corrupt judges to stay in power.

Canadians have not ratified a constitution so the politicians do not swear in to uphold a constitution ; but insted a figurehead. You have no control over any politician, and they do not represent you in any government.

If you knew anything about Canadian politics you would know the west was given should and Quebec was given shall in reference to changes in a constitution.

quote

[no queenslave]

Do you expect 32 million people to get together and write a constitution? That's what we elect representatives to the federal and provincial legislatures for, who then support, or don't support, a group of ministers appointed to minister the Queen, or Governor General, on how to exercise the Crown's powers.

One wonders how you'd handle things. A constitution is "drafted and ratified" by the sovereign, independent people of Canada (however that would happen). A new immigrant is granted Canadian citizenship. A child is born in Canada. Neither of them "drafted and ratified" the constitution they now live under. Are they then slaves to the rest of the Canadian populace? Ponder on that for a while.

read the legal definition of a democracy i posted .

On how to exercise the Crowns powers- for figureheads?

In a dictatorship you don't have to worry about that; just get indoctrinated.Read government propaganda.

How did it happen in Iraq or Afghanistan .

How was the attempt to ratify the B.N.A.Act as our constitution done?

People who are interested , draft a constitution, and a vote is held, the process is no secret..

[no queenslave]

How many colonies did Britain have in north America at the time of the B.N.A.Act?

What documented evidence have you that they signed an agreement to unite?

What government propaganda ?

[jbg]

Nor should they, as the US Constitution is better understood and appreciated in the context of competing factions trying to survive as a fledgling democracy to the point of civil war.

There was nothing wrong wtih the Constitution that provoked the Civil War. At bottom, Christian evangelicalism was also the anti-slavery movement. The Civil War was more the rock meeting an immovable object.

It has proven to be remarkably resilient and adapatable at the same time (with Amendments).

And very few of those.. The first Ten Amendments were the Bill of Rights, enacted simultaneously. The nxt related to technical issues of sovereign immunity, the next, to fixing a defect in the system of electing Vice Presidents that virtually guaranteed many electoral ties, 13, 14 and 15 dealt with slavery and its aftermath. the 18th and 21st were the "round trip" to and from prohibition, so that's 17 out of 27 amendments. Other than the Bill of Rights and 13-15, most amendments were technical and not momentous, so they didn't play much role in keeping the Constitution alive.

It is no accident that Canuck debates often include comparisons to the much older republic and constitution to the south, even if it would never work in Canada.

I'm always surprised and shocked that Canada uses the US as a foil.

[no queenslave]

How many colonies did Britain have in north America at the time of the B.N.A.Act?

What documented evidence have you that they signed an agreement to unite?

What government propaganda ?

[bush_cheney2004]

How many colonies did Britain have in north America at the time of the B.N.A.Act?

What documented evidence have you that they signed an agreement to unite?

What government propaganda ?

How many? I guess the British were down to just a half dozen by 1867....but it was a good run until those pesky Americans came along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_colon...n_North_America

[no queenslave]

There was nothing wrong wtih the Constitution that provoked the Civil War. At bottom, Christian evangelicalism was also the anti-slavery movement. The Civil War was more the rock meeting an immovable object.

And very few of those.. The first Ten Amendments were the Bill of Rights, enacted simultaneously. The nxt related to technical issues of sovereign immunity, the next, to fixing a defect in the system of electing Vice Presidents that virtually guaranteed many electoral ties, 13, 14 and 15 dealt with slavery and its aftermath. the 18th and 21st were the "round trip" to and from prohibition, so that's 17 out of 27 amendments. Other than the Bill of Rights and 13-15, most amendments were technical and not momentous, so they didn't play much role in keeping the Constitution alive.

I'm always surprised and shocked that Canada uses the US as a foil.

point out when Canada uses the U.S. as a foil- by who to prevent what.

[jbg]

How many colonies did Britain have in north America at the time of the B.N.A.Act?

What documented evidence have you that they signed an agreement to unite?

What government propaganda ?

Rbacon, are you counting Upper and Lower Canada, NB, NS, PEI and Newfoundland as separate colonies? What about Barbados, Antigua and Jamaica?

[no queenslave]

Huh? I don't understand your post, but I did list you as one of my two favorite posters (link).

do you understand this-http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm-?

[g_bambino]

read the legal definition of a democracy i posted .

On how to exercise the Crowns powers- for figureheads?

In a dictatorship you don't have to worry about that; just get indoctrinated.Read government propaganda.

How did it happen in Iraq or Afghanistan .

How was the attempt to ratify the B.N.A.Act as our constitution done?

People who are interested , draft a constitution, and a vote is held, the process is no secret..

You didn't address any of my points. So, again:

Do you expect 32 million people to get together and write a constitution? That's what we elect representatives to the federal and provincial legislatures for, who then support, or don't support, a group of ministers appointed to minister the Queen, or Governor General, on how to exercise the Crown's powers.

One wonders how you'd handle things. A constitution is "drafted and ratified" by the sovereign, independent people of Canada (however that would happen). A new immigrant is granted Canadian citizenship. A child is born in Canada. Neither of them "drafted and ratified" the constitution they now live under. Are they then slaves to the rest of the Canadian populace? Ponder on that for a while.

(PS- there's no legal definition of democracy. In fact, there's no one definition at all.)