The Federal Republic of Canada

[Smallc]

I think that France's system is somewhat interesting. I'm not a fan of the US system of government in comparison to one where the ministry is accountable to parliament.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

I think that France's system is somewhat interesting. I'm not a fan of thE Us system of government in comparison to one where the ministry is accountable to parliament.

In some respects it is certainly superior. The separation of powers is much better thought it, in that in each branch of government has some degree of overlapping authority, but also some areas where it's authority is not shared.

[Smallc]

In some respects it is certainly superior. The separation of powers is much better thought it, in that in each branch of government has some degree of overlapping authority, but also some areas where it's authority is not shared.

I suppose, but that's also because in a parliamentary system, the said parliament is supreme. There are benefits and drawbacks to each approach, I suppose, I simply prefer the way a parliament works over a congressional system.

[jbg]

You were more accurate when you said you know nothing about Canada. The Queen appoints the GG based solely on the advice of the Canadian PM. The PM makes the decision that matters. The ceremonial procedure is irrelevant.

Do you lack both a sense of humor and a sense of humour?

[jbg]

And that's the other problems with republicans, both here and in Australia, is the unwillingness to state what system they want. It's always "we'll figure that out later", which leads one to believe that their motives are entirely ideological, and lacking in any practical perspective.

Or worse than that, they want the kind of untrammeled power enjoyed by Hugo Chavez. In Australia only the GG prevented that from happening in 1975 when he turfed Gough Whitlam.

[BubberMiley]

Do you lack both a sense of humor and a sense of humour?

That was supposed to be a joke? Hilarious...

[ToadBrother]

Or worse than that, they want the kind of untrammeled power enjoyed by Hugo Chavez. In Australia only the GG prevented that from happening in 1975 when he turfed Gough Whitlam.

That's not the way I read it. What happened was that because of the Australian constitution, the Senate there can block supply bills (this cannot be done in the UK's House of Lords or in the Canadian Senate), which lead to a political deadlock. Various ways of getting out of it had been tried, but the GG, Sir John Kerr, decided in the end to dismiss the Labor government. It's considerably more complex than that, but needless to say this was a crisis as much brought on by the Opposition in the Senate as by Whitlam, and whatever Whitlam's strategies, I don't think anyone ever reasonably accused him of Chavez-style maneuvering. The Australian Constitutional Crisis is still fairly heavily debated in Westminster constitutional circles, with some seeing Kerr dismissal as an overreaction and for a distinct lack of candor.

[wyly]

Do you realize how many European countries are monarchies?

I think there are only seven monarchies and maybe two princedoms and a duchy left...the other 30 or so are free of entitled anachronistic welfare leaches...

[ToadBrother]

I suppose, but that's also because in a parliamentary system, the said parliament is supreme. There are benefits and drawbacks to each approach, I suppose, I simply prefer the way a parliament works over a congressional system.

To a great extent the goals of the Founding Fathers were considerably different than that of the various "framers" of the Westminster Parliament. For starters, there were really no framers of our system, save perhaps for Edward I's Model Parliament, prior to which there had been any number of convocations of advisors to the King dating past even the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain into the murky past of Teutonic tribal government. The "framers" of the Bill of Rights 1689 were not interested in checks and balances, their chief interest was in limiting the power of the King and forever staking out for Parliament those rights and privileges that translated into its Supremacy. While modifications have been made for federal systems like Canada and Australia which have effectively ended Parliamentary supremacy, in England, at least, it still stands, and any checks and balances exist at the whim of Parliament, even who gets to reign (Parliament made it very clear twice in the 17th century that it has the power to decide who sits on the throne and for how long).

When the United States threw off British dominance, the Westminster system still had not fully evolved to where it is now. The King still wielded a large amount of influence over government policy, and what stems from this was the notion that the Executive should have sharper limits on its powers. I think the checks and balances in the US Constitution are well thought out, and if they don't always work in practice, it's mainly because people don't behave with as much sense as the Framers would have liked.

[jbg]

That's not the way I read it. What happened was that because of the Australian constitution, the Senate there can block supply bills (this cannot be done in the UK's House of Lords or in the Canadian Senate), which lead to a political deadlock....Opposition in the Senate as by Whitlam, and whatever Whitlam's strategies, I don't think anyone ever reasonably accused him of Chavez-style maneuvering.

As I recall though (I was following the matter in the newspapers from college) the problem was that Whitlam wouldn't make an ironclad promise to go ahead with elections for both the Senate and their equivalent of Commons in December 1975, which was the traditional three (3) years after his December 1972 mandate start. That was the "Chavez-ian" maneuvering. It would be as if Mulroney (or Campbell at the real bitter end) refused to "advise" the GG to dissolve Parliament. As I recall she had days left to do just that.

Whitlam in fact went to the GG shortly before the November 10, 1975 ouster, advising a "single dissolution" of only the Senate. The GG was willing to proceed only with the traditional, every three year double-dissolution of both houses. The subtext, at the time, was that many democracies' leaders (including a few years earlier Richard M. Nixon in my country) were playing games with previously inviolate democratic principles. Fortunately, Kerr, a GG in fact selected by Whitlam, would have none of it.

[jbg]

I think there are only seven monarchies and maybe two princedoms and a duchy left...the other 30 or so are free of entitled anachronistic welfare leaches...

From my quick count, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the UK are monarchies. That leaves France, Germany, Portugal, and former Communist states as your republics. So, ex the former Warsaw Pact members, monarchies predominated.

[Bonam]

From my quick count, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the UK are monarchies. That leaves France, Germany, Portugal, and former Communist states as your republics. So, ex the former Warsaw Pact members, monarchies predominated.

You left out many countries in this count...

Switzerland

Austria

Italy

Finland

Luxembourg

And that's just off the top of my head, there's probably a few more if I glanced at a map.

[jbg]

My real thoughts on monarchy (link).

[jbg]

You left out many countries in this count...

Switzerland

Austria

Italy

Finland

Luxembourg

And that's just off the top of my head, there's probably a few more if I glanced at a map.

Isn't Luxembourg a principality?

[Bonam]

Isn't Luxembourg a principality?

I dunno. Here's what wikipedia has to say:

Luxembourg (pronounced /ˈlʌksəmbɜrɡ/ ( listen) LUKS-əm-berg), officially the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourgish: Groussherzogtum Lëtzebuerg, French: Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, German: Großherzogtum Luxemburg), is a landlocked country in western Europe, bordered by Belgium, France, and Germany. Luxembourg has a population of over half a million people in an area of approximately 2,586 square kilometres (999 sq mi).[1]

Luxembourg is a parliamentary representative democracy with a constitutional monarch; it is ruled by a Grand Duke. It is the world's only remaining sovereign Grand Duchy.

[Smallc]

Isn't Luxembourg a principality?

It's the same thing as a monarchy.

[ToadBrother]

As I recall though (I was following the matter in the newspapers from college) the problem was that Whitlam wouldn't make an ironclad promise to go ahead with elections for both the Senate and their equivalent of Commons in December 1975, which was the traditional three (3) years after his December 1972 mandate start. That was the "Chavez-ian" maneuvering. It would be as if Mulroney (or Campbell at the real bitter end) refused to "advise" the GG to dissolve Parliament. As I recall she had days left to do just that.

Whitlam in fact went to the GG shortly before the November 10, 1975 ouster, advising a "single dissolution" of only the Senate. The GG was willing to proceed only with the traditional, every three year double-dissolution of both houses. The subtext, at the time, was that many democracies' leaders (including a few years earlier Richard M. Nixon in my country) were playing games with previously inviolate democratic principles. Fortunately, Kerr, a GG in fact selected by Whitlam, would have none of it.

Part of the problem, I suspect, comes from your point of view. Supporters of Fraser and Kerr naturally went around declaring Whitlam some sort of would-be tyrant, but the fact was that Fraser played every bit as much a role in creating this crisis. Underlying it seems to be the general opinion that Australia's peculiar mix of a semi-American style Senate and a pure Westminster lower house make such deadlocks much more likely. In the UK a good deal of effort in the 19th and early 20th centuries was spent limiting the upper house's powers, and in Canada, the idea that the Senate should be limited, particularly as far as supply bills, in what it can do, prevent the situation.

I still don't buy that Whitlam was some evil Nixonesque tyrant, and compared to the kinds of reforms that happened in the 19th and 20th centuries to the House of Lords in Britain, his proposals seemed pretty modest. The chief criticism of Kerr was that he basically duped Whitlam, and that has long sullied this most rare of the uses of the Reserve Powers. The Queen and her representatives should not stoop to that kind of maneuvering, and it certainly wasn't necessary. If Kerr thought Whitlam was overreaching or that the deadlock could not be averted save ultimately by dismissing the government then he should have done so. The crisis did Kerr few favors, and I'd say that it has since greatly empowered Australian republicans.

The precise layout of the powers between the two houses in a bicameral legislature is damned tricky game, and one that anyone looking to a Triple-E Senate should be cautious (though I am, in general, in favor of democratic reforms to the Senate). This is why I'm very cautious of reform for reform's sake. The Australian crisis in 1975 amply demonstrated that every iteration has its own risks, even if they are infrequent.

Edited June 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

Part of the problem, I suspect, comes from your point of view. Supporters of Fraser and Kerr naturally went around declaring Whitlam some sort of would-be tyrant, but the fact was that Fraser played every bit as much a role in creating this crisis....I still don't buy that Whitlam was some evil Nixonesque tyrant, and compared to the kinds of reforms that happened in the 19th and 20th centuries to the House of Lords in Britain, his proposals seemed pretty modest.

I was not at that time at all against Labour-type policies or government. Having just gone through the utterly awful Nixon years, I and many Americans were hyper-sensitive to encroachments on democracy. Remember, Nixon's henchpeople were most active late at night, in furtive settings. It was a very ugly period.

The chief criticism of Kerr was that he basically duped Whitlam, and that has long sullied this most rare of the uses of the Reserve Powers.

Do your mean that Frasier duped Kerr? How could Kerr have duped Whitlam, other than by not letting him know, on November 10, 1975 that Whitlam was going to have a serious bad-hair day?

The Queen and her representatives should not stoop to that kind of maneuvering, and it certainly wasn't necessary. If Kerr thought Whitlam was overreaching or that the deadlock could not be averted save ultimately by dismissing the government then he should have done so. The crisis did Kerr few favors, and I'd say that it has since greatly empowered Australian republicans.

Clearly Kerr's was the kind of action that doesn't lend itself to repetition.

The precise layout of the powers between the two houses in a bicameral legislature is damned tricky game, and one that anyone looking to a Triple-E Senate should be cautious (though I am, in general, in favor of democratic reforms to the Senate). This is why I'm very cautious of reform for reform's sake. The Australian crisis in 1975 amply demonstrated that every iteration has its own risks, even if they are infrequent.

In the U.S. Obama took some real liberties with Senate procedures to force health reform through. Essentially, he took an existing bill that sixty in the Senate had passed (at that time knowing it stood not a chance in the House), and got the House to pass it, with the promise that the House could later write a modification bill that the Senate could pass under rules allowing 51 Senators to vote for the bill rather than the normal 60. This sleight of hand was necessitated by Brown's election in Massachusetts, in an election widely seen as a referendum of the health care bill.

You're right. Playing games with upper houses is like looking for a gas leak with a match.

[Bonam]

You're right. Playing games with upper houses is like looking for a gas leak with a match.

Seems like a reasonable thing to do. You'll get rid of all the leaked gas the moment you find it...

[jbg]

Seems like a reasonable thing to do. You'll get rid of all the leaked gas the moment you find it...

That works better in cow pastures.

The MP's usually don't leave their fecal matter behind. At least that's what I assume given the highly decorous and mannerly nature of Parliamentary proceedings in Ottawa (based on viewing CPAC and reading some Hansards).

[ToadBrother]

I was not at that time at all against Labour-type policies or government. Having just gone through the utterly awful Nixon years, I and many Americans were hyper-sensitive to encroachments on democracy. Remember, Nixon's henchpeople were most active late at night, in furtive settings. It was a very ugly period.

Do your mean that Frasier duped Kerr? How could Kerr have duped Whitlam, other than by not letting him know, on November 10, 1975 that Whitlam was going to have a serious bad-hair day?

The issue here is that the Governor General's role isn't a one way street. His job is to advise, and not advising Whitlam of what was to come was an abuse, in my eyes at least, of his use of the Reserve Powers. Now the rational behind that is pretty simple, because of Whitlam knew what precisely was coming his first thing to do would have been to give Buckingham Palace a jingle and instruct the Queen to dismiss Kerr and appoint a new GG. The latter, oddly enough, is more preferable than what Kerr did.

At any rate, it's hardly a universal opinion, but the general consensus of the Australian crisis was that there were no real heroes.

Clearly Kerr's was the kind of action that doesn't lend itself to repetition.

In the U.S. Obama took some real liberties with Senate procedures to force health reform through. Essentially, he took an existing bill that sixty in the Senate had passed (at that time knowing it stood not a chance in the House), and got the House to pass it, with the promise that the House could later write a modification bill that the Senate could pass under rules allowing 51 Senators to vote for the bill rather than the normal 60. This sleight of hand was necessitated by Brown's election in Massachusetts, in an election widely seen as a referendum of the health care bill.

You're right. Playing games with upper houses is like looking for a gas leak with a match.

The US is no stranger to that kind of game playing.

[jbg]

At any rate, it's hardly a universal opinion, but the general consensus of the Australian crisis was that there were no real heroes.

I've heard that.

The US is no stranger to that kind of game playing.

No kidding. I laid out a recent egregious example. Similarly Reagan pushed through a massive tax increase in a similar manner. Under our Constitution all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Given that was not an option, the Senate took a truly minor bill (akin to authorizing a soda machine in some part of Washington D.C., not sure on exact bill but something farcical) and added a huge tax overhall and increase, in 1982, known as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsbility Act (TEFRA). One of the darker and lesser known parts of Reagan's presidency.

[bloodyminded]

No kidding. I laid out a recent egregious example. Similarly Reagan pushed through a massive tax increase in a similar manner. Under our Constitution all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Given that was not an option, the Senate took a truly minor bill (akin to authorizing a soda machine in some part of Washington D.C., not sure on exact bill but something farcical) and added a huge tax overhall and increase, in 1982, known as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsbility Act (TEFRA). One of the darker and lesser known parts of Reagan's presidency.

Practically blasphemous.

[g_bambino]

You were more accurate when you said you know nothing about Canada. The Queen appoints the GG based solely on the advice of the Canadian PM. The PM makes the decision that matters. The ceremonial procedure is irrelevant.

He was talking about how the head of state is chosen. The governor general is not head of state.

[M.Dancer]

He was talking about how the head of state is chosen. The governor general is not head of state.

Anyone who knows anything about canada knows this..

Our system of government is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13288