constitution

[badactor]

I want help with this new way we tend to view the constitution. I am over 50 now and since those very Liberal days of Trudeau and the institution of government funded lobby one of the many things I have become totally disillusioned about is the way young people interperate the Canadian constitution. I was raised to believe that our fathers meant for the constitution to be the kind of document that would prevent the mistreatment of a people by their government, in a nut shell a document that would restrict the actions of government. When I ask my own kids and others, even some polititions they have developed a very twisted concept of the constitution as to believe now that the constitution is a document that demands that all people are treated equal under the law. and it is the government's duty to enforce the constitution. I Truely want any and all to comment on this but please, please, please do not comment until you have asked at least 3 young people which definition they believe is true.

[charter.rights]

I want help with this new way we tend to view the constitution. I am over 50 now and since those very Liberal days of Trudeau and the institution of government funded lobby one of the many things I have become totally disillusioned about is the way young people interperate the Canadian constitution. I was raised to believe that our fathers meant for the constitution to be the kind of document that would prevent the mistreatment of a people by their government, in a nut shell a document that would restrict the actions of government. When I ask my own kids and others, even some polititions they have developed a very twisted concept of the constitution as to believe now that the constitution is a document that demands that all people are treated equal under the law. and it is the government's duty to enforce the constitution. I Truely want any and all to comment on this but please, please, please do not comment until you have asked at least 3 young people which definition they believe is true.

Badactor, you are still correct about the intent of the constitution. It is to control the actions of government and prevent tyranny against the people.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives see the exploitation of people as a means to profit and the presnt way the constitution is read gets in their way. So they have for 30 years tried to undermine it, reinterpret it and deny it as much as they can get away with.

The Supreme Court ruled that Omar Khadr's rights were violated by the Conservative government when they willingly participated in his torture in order to extract intelligence. The Federal Court last week order Steven Harper to intervene on his behalf. Yet their response it to appeal the order to the Federal Court of Appeal, and tie up a citizen of Canada's rights in court for the next two years.

This is only one example and there are many more if you just scan the news over the last 3 or 4 years they have been the government.

Most Canadians are ignorant and apathetic about what is going on, the restriction on their rights, and the unconstitutional operation of the Conservative government. As Canadians we should be learning about these issues and taking a stand against an increasingly tyrannic government. Otherwise we will wake up some day and Canada will be a third world puppet of the US conservative movement and a slave to their corporations and military regimes.

Edited July 16, 2010 by charter.rights

[Argus]

Badactor, you are still correct about the intent of the constitution. It is to control the actions of government and prevent tyranny against the people.

I've told you before that your demonstrated ignorance about ever aspect of the constitution makes you incapable of making any lucid comment regarding it, the Charter, or anything related. So please stop.

In point of fact, the purpose of a Constitution is to set the governmental structure, and the responsibilities and limitations of governments. No doubt your confusion (some of it) arises from the fact the only part of the Constitution you've ever heard of is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - not that you've ever actually read that document, mind.

The rest of your completely off-topic blather can best be described as the braying of an ass set to rap music (if you can call rap music).

[Argus]

I want help with this new way we tend to view the constitution. I am over 50 now and since those very Liberal days of Trudeau and the institution of government funded lobby one of the many things I have become totally disillusioned about is the way young people interperate the Canadian constitution. I was raised to believe that our fathers meant for the constitution to be the kind of document that would prevent the mistreatment of a people by their government, in a nut shell a document that would restrict the actions of government. When I ask my own kids and others, even some polititions they have developed a very twisted concept of the constitution as to believe now that the constitution is a document that demands that all people are treated equal under the law. and it is the government's duty to enforce the constitution. I Truely want any and all to comment on this but please, please, please do not comment until you have asked at least 3 young people which definition they believe is true.

The constitution of Canada has many purposes, not the least of which is setting out how government is to function, ie as a parliamentary democracy, its limitations, its requirements, and how power is shared among the different governmental jurisdictions. A part of this document is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which you and these young people you describe seem to believe is the constitution. It's actually just a part of the constitution. Stating it is designed to prevent mistreatment of people by government is simplistic but not entirely inaccurate. But a part of the Charter also sets out requirements that the government treat all people equally, and not discriminate against one group to the benefit of another. At least, not without good reason.

[charter.rights]

"....responsibilities and limitations of governments." Argus, Thanks for reinforcing my and badactor's point.

Just for reference I said:

"It is to control the actions of government and prevent tyranny against the people." (I think that means responsibilities and limitations)

And badactor said:

"...the constitution to be the kind of document that would prevent the mistreatment of a people by their government, in a nut shell a document that would restrict the actions of government." (I think this means responsibilities and limitations too...)

So in essence it appears that putting your silly hatred for me aside for a moment, you agree with me.

[Argus]

So in essence it appears that putting your silly hatred for me aside for a moment, you agree with me.

It must be interesting to only read what you want into every post, while the rest sails blithely over your head. I guess that might account for why you keep posting despite your every argument being crushed by someone or other.

Oh,and don't mistake contempt for hatred.

[charter.rights]

It must be interesting to only read what you want into every post, while the rest sails blithely over your head. I guess that might account for why you keep posting despite your every argument being crushed by someone or other.

Oh,and don't mistake contempt for hatred.

Oh you are reading and imagining into this more than you realize. The rest of your post was ad hominem nonsense, so there was no point in responding. Otherwise you might just believe that your sophomoric fantasies are real.

Edited July 16, 2010 by charter.rights

[ToadBrother]

I want help with this new way we tend to view the constitution. I am over 50 now and since those very Liberal days of Trudeau and the institution of government funded lobby one of the many things I have become totally disillusioned about is the way young people interperate the Canadian constitution. I was raised to believe that our fathers meant for the constitution to be the kind of document that would prevent the mistreatment of a people by their government, in a nut shell a document that would restrict the actions of government. When I ask my own kids and others, even some polititions they have developed a very twisted concept of the constitution as to believe now that the constitution is a document that demands that all people are treated equal under the law. and it is the government's duty to enforce the constitution. I Truely want any and all to comment on this but please, please, please do not comment until you have asked at least 3 young people which definition they believe is true.

Constitutions, written or otherwise, create the basic infrastructure of governments, set out divisions of power, functions of those divisions, etc. Certainly some sort of bill of rights is usually included, serving as a direct limitation on a government's ability to impinge upon civil liberties.

This is all politics 101. Perhaps you need to review the purposes of constitutions.

[Moonbox]

It must be interesting to only read what you want into every post, while the rest sails blithely over your head. I guess that might account for why you keep posting despite your every argument being crushed by someone or other.

Oh,and don't mistake contempt for hatred.

Couldn't have said it better myself - especially the part in bold.

Just in case you don't understand what contempt means (and I'm sure you don't) it means we don't respect your intelligence level.

[eyeball]

A constitution is what people use to define how they wish to be governed.

Only a very small limited number of human beings have ever had the good fortune or opportunity to do this. In a democracy I think we should make a point of ensuring every generation have at least a kick or two at this can.

I certainly wouldn't leave it up to politicians alone to do this. That's too much like letting the foxes guard the proverbial chicken coop.

[ToadBrother]

A constitution is what people use to define how they wish to be governed.

Only a very small limited number of human beings have ever had the good fortune or opportunity to do this. In a democracy I think we should make a point of ensuring every generation have at least a kick or two at this can.

I certainly wouldn't leave it up to politicians alone to do this. That's too much like letting the foxes guard the proverbial chicken coop.

You're seriously advocating a new constitution twice a generation? For what purpose? To what end? Endless political conflict and instability?

You really are an extraordinarily absurd person.

[Jack Weber]

You're seriously advocating a new constitution twice a generation? For what purpose? To what end? Endless political conflict and instability?

You really are an extraordinarily absurd person.

I thought constitutional amendments were used to change certain things within a country's constitution,so that we would'nt need a new constitution every 20 years???

That seems like an infinitely better idea than drafting a new constitution whenever someone wants to change something....

Edited July 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[eyeball]

You really are an extraordinarily absurd person.

You really are an extraordinarily antagonistic person. For what purpose? To what end? Endless political conflict and instability?

$^*& you too.

[eyeball]

I thought constitutional amendments were used to change certain things within a country's constitution,so that we would'nt need a new constitution every 20 years???

That seems like an infinitely better idea than drafting a new constitution whenever someone wants to change something....

Thank you. I did say at least a kick or two at the can, not write a whole freakin' new constitution like Li'l Miss Anal Pants would have us believe.

Edited July 16, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Thank you. I did say at least a kick or two at the can, not write a whole freakin' new constitution like Li'l Miss Anal Pants would have us believe.

Then perhaps you need to better express yourself. But I'm curious as to why one would need to amend the constitution twice a generation unless there was some necessity.

I don't get you guys with your "change for change's sake" line. It utterly mystifies me. What's wrong with "change where needed when possible"?

[ToadBrother]

You really are an extraordinarily antagonistic person. For what purpose? To what end? Endless political conflict and instability?

$^*& you too.

You spend half your time here demanding change, though often of a rather nebulous nature, and the other half the time explaining how you're utterly apathetic.

[Jack Weber]

Then perhaps you need to better express yourself. But I'm curious as to why one would need to amend the constitution twice a generation unless there was some necessity.

I don't get you guys with your "change for change's sake" line. It utterly mystifies me. What's wrong with "change where needed when possible"?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with that...

[eyeball]

Then perhaps you need to better express yourself. But I'm curious as to why one would need to amend the constitution twice a generation unless there was some necessity.

I don't get you guys with your "change for change's sake" line. It utterly mystifies me. What's wrong with "change where needed when possible"?

Nothing at all.

Why make it such an ordeal when someone suggests we do?

[eyeball]

You spend half your time here demanding change, though often of a rather nebulous nature, and the other half the time explaining how you're utterly apathetic.

You spend 90% of your time resisting any change and most of the other 10% insulting anyone who thinks otherwise.

Feel free to bite me.

[ToadBrother]

You spend 90% of your time resisting any change and most of the other 10% insulting anyone who thinks otherwise.

B.S. to that. I have proposed many changes. What I have not done is declare absurdities like Internet voting as a way to kill off the political class, or insisted that the constitution needs changing as often as someone changes the underwear. You and myata both just seem to be pissed at the system, and imagine any change, regardless of how bizarre or impossible, will somehow magically fix it. I'm a realist. I know enough about history and, in particular, the history of politics to know that change is often the risky venture of picking the devil you don't know over the devil you do.

[Mr.Canada]

B.S. to that. I have proposed many changes. What I have not done is declare absurdities like Internet voting as a way to kill off the political class, or insisted that the constitution needs changing as often as someone changes the underwear. You and myata both just seem to be pissed at the system, and imagine any change, regardless of how bizarre or impossible, will somehow magically fix it. I'm a realist. I know enough about history and, in particular, the history of politics to know that change is often the risky venture of picking the devil you don't know over the devil you do.

This country needs a hard right revolution or a civil war imo. There's nothing wrong with some of the parts of fascism. People really need to read about things instead of believing what someone said or what they think. Get the facts then decide. Fascism doesn't mean racism and people need to understand that.

[ToadBrother]

Nothing at all.

Why make it such an ordeal when someone suggests we do?

I can think of a number of sensible amendments to the constitution. The problem in Canada is that sensible amendments are pretty much impossible, too. That's why I was incredulous of Harper's back-door Senate reform, when it's very clear that, at best, it isn't at all binding on any future government, and more likely is unconstitutional. It's not that I approve of the Senate as formulated by the the writers of the BNA Act, I am in fact quite opposed to it. But I'm a strong constitutionalist, I don't believe in politicians defying constitutional restraints on any particular branch or level of government out of either political manipulation, or even populist zeal. If we're going to do it, we need to do it right, within the not-so-onerous frameworks that the Constitution Act, 1982 sets out. We also don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

All in all, despite all the problems, the seemingly detached political classes, the deep regional divisions, a varyingly apathetic electorate, we have probably one of the best governments on Earth, and probably in history. We are governed by the rule of law, see the peaceful transfer of power from one government to another and are generally quite prosperous (look at how people lived, say, three hundred years when our system came into existence and tell me that we haven't seen incredible leaps forward). These are things that most humans throughout history have not enjoyed, either living under various kinds of tyranny, or under chaos, where the rule of law was what the strongest said it was and transfers of government were often produced by court intrigues or open warfare.

These things considered, a cautious and thoughtful refinement is required, not a political revolution ever 20 or 30 years. A good constitution needs the odd bit of tinkering here and there.

I know I'm an asshole, eyeball, and I apologize. I'm strong minded, so my words are often strong, too strong even. But frankly I think sometimes that you are frustrated by the fact that you've left the rest of the populace behind. While everyone agrees change is necessary, you seem to want to make massive changes, almost as if you want to fail, because short of open revolution, societies do not go through the massive changes. The formulators of the Constitution Act, 1982 understood that. That's why the maintained the general framework handed down from Confederation, and in more general terms, kept the constitutional structure of government laid down in 1689.

[ToadBrother]

This country needs a hard right revolution or a civil war imo. There's nothing wrong with some of the parts of fascism. People really need to read about things instead of believing what someone said or what they think. Get the facts then decide. Fascism doesn't mean racism and people need to understand that.

For God's sake, shut up. It's not funny, it's not amusing, it just makes you look like a moron. Only someone who hasn't lived under Fascism would say something so fundamentally stupid.

[Mr.Canada]

For God's sake, shut up. It's not funny, it's not amusing, it just makes you look like a moron. Only someone who hasn't lived under Fascism would say something so fundamentally stupid.

I don't calling me names is a very mature response. I'm not calling you names yet you deem it ok to do so to me? Am I not entitled to my opinion just as you are?

[ToadBrother]

I don't calling me names is a very mature response. I'm not calling you names yet you deem it ok to do so to me? Am I not entitled to my opinion just as you are?

I think most of us have reached the point where sensible answers to your inanity aren't necessary. You're a figure of derision, almost entirely by your own hand, and now suddenly you want people to act as if posts lauding Fascism are serious?

I'm of the opinion that you're either a bored 14 year old or a developmentally stalled 40 year old.