And the New GG Is.....

[nicky10013]

Indeed....Canada can go to war without Parliament even discussing the issue...how "flexible" !

The US constitutional system is drowning under the weight of inefficiency due to checks and balances and that's all you've got?

[eyeball]

Your problem isn't the document, which has not too outrageously difficult formulas for altering it, it's human beings.

Yeah, they're either all nuts, stupid, lazy, apathetic or a combination of these. Perhaps this explains why I enjoy my privacy and solitude more as I get older.

I've all but given up being involved in the local governance scene. I don't think it's just me either, the odd committee member used to call to tell me my old seat around the table is still there but now it's the bureaucrats we used to work with who call. I guess nobody else is very interested in working with them anymore either. It's not like it really made a huge difference when we did. The only reason I was involved was to try and limit the number of intrusions the government wanted to make on us. I did my bit, I hope I was able to help.

Edited July 9, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, they're either all nuts, stupid, lazy, apathetic or a combination of these. Perhaps this explains why I enjoy my privacy and solitude more as I get older.

I've all but given up being involved in the local governance scene. I don't think it's just me either, the odd committee member used to call to tell me my old seat around the table is still there but now it's the bureaucrats we used to work with who call. I guess nobody else is very interested in working with them anymore either. It's not like it really made a huge difference when we did. The only reason I was involved was to try and limit the number of intrusions the government wanted to make on us. I did my bit, I hope I was able to help.

I think you spend a lot of time blaming everybody else for your own failings. If people don't want to go through the pains of constitutional change, then certainly that's they're right. No one owes you a damned thing, my friend.

[ToadBrother]

The US constitutional system is drowning under the weight of inefficiency due to checks and balances and that's all you've got?

I find this a strange complaint. Those checks and balances are pretty damned smart, and in general have kept any branch from overwhelming every other. Of course, having less constitutional restraints will make it easier for, say, the executive to get what he or she wants, but in the long history of unrestrained executive governments, I think I'd rather have some potent checks, even if it inevitably introduces inefficiencies.

[eyeball]

I think you spend a lot of time blaming everybody else for your own failings.

I blame myself for getting into industries that require honest government management. Biggest mistake of my life.

If people don't want to go through the pains of constitutional change, then certainly that's they're right. No one owes you a damned thing, my friend.

I feel the same way about our country.

Edited July 9, 2010 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

The US constitutional system is drowning under the weight of inefficiency due to checks and balances and that's all you've got?

Clue: The US system was designed to be "inefficient". There is no popular American equivalent to "Meech lake" or "Charlottetown" bogeyman in the constitutional process.

[ToadBrother]

Clue: The US system was designed to be "inefficient". There is no popular American equivalent to "Meech lake" or "Charlottetown" bogeyman in the constitutional process.

Well, they did have to threaten Rhode Island, and there was that little thing called the Civil War which somewhat upset notions of states rights. Again, the problem in Canada is not the amending formulas, they are there, and they are intentionally difficult (but certainly not impossible), but rather a long-standing political and social divide between East and West, and the very unique nature of Quebec's relationship with the rest of the country.

[g_bambino]

The near permanent rigidity of constitutional incrementalism is like some inertial dampening field that's affected the entire edifice of government from top to bottom. The pace of change picks up a little along the way but far too many wheels grind far too slowly in a soul destroying process that can take the better part of a lifetime or more to unfold for some people.

So, you malign the slowness of constitutional change - though, where this aggravated push for change is, I don't know - as though the instability that comes with sudden change - especially to the core of the entire system - is a good thing for the maintenance of a prosperous society.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Again, the problem in Canada is not the amending formulas, they are there, and they are intentionally difficult (but certainly not impossible), but rather a long-standing political and social divide between East and West, and the very unique nature of Quebec's relationship with the rest of the country.

Yes, it's amazing what a little CIVIL WAR can do to clarify such "relationships" and social divisions.

[eyeball]

So, you malign the slowness of constitutional change - though, where this aggravated push for change is, I don't know - as though the instability that comes with sudden change - especially to the core of the entire system - is a good thing for the maintenance of a prosperous society.

No, I malign how an attitude of incremental change if any at all, seems to permeate just about anything that has to do with our governance, not just the BIG constitutional issues.

I realize there is a lot of politicized friction from below that make the wheels grind slowly, but there's no doubt a heavy weight of incrementalism is also bearing down on those wheels.

Drive it till something breaks I guess.

[msdogfood]

Just what we need, Prime Ministers with even more power. Keep the GG.

Yes Keep the GG!!!.