.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's see. Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

I'm not sure if I recognize the existence of God, let alone the supremacy. But I guess it expresses my will because On Guard for Thee says so.

I see, so now you wan to throw out the whole charter...

[cybercoma]

In terms of it's existence as a partner in Confederation, yes. That's the point of the Senate - to balance the concerns of the provinces.

Uh, no. The point of the Senate is to balance the concern of the regions. You would like it to balance the concerns of the provinces, but that's not what the Senate does. Provincial concerns are handled by provincial negotiations with the federal government, but then Stephen Harper doesn't like meeting with the first ministers.

[cybercoma]

Why would you think you understand it far better than OGTF?

Because when someone disagrees with you on this forum, you're supposed to insult their intelligence. Duh.

[cybercoma]

I've also heard people refer to the Prairie provinces, as a region distinct from BC. So the West should be 2 regions.

Also, according to your above statement 'central Canada' is a region, yet in the senate it is 2 regions (Ontario + Quebec).

It's arbitrary. Stop lying to yourself.

Sure. Make BC distinct like Newfoundland is distinct in the Atlantic.

[cybercoma]

It isn't dumb. It's a legitimate compromise in a federal state.

But the point is that the provinces did compromise. They got what they asked for and more in the case of the Western provinces. They only wanted 4 senators in most cases and the Constitution Act of 1915 gave them all 6.

[cybercoma]

Of course the court is important. We have though, made it far too powerful.

This is not true either. We're one of the only countries with a mechanism like the Notwithstanding Clause that allows the government to completely disregard constitutional rulings by the high court. The only reason people like you and other extreme rightwing radicals think the court is TOO powerful is because the Conservative can't write legislation for crap. They don't seem to understand that the laws in our country need to be just, can't violate people's rights, and can't discriminate. So it certainly looks like the SCC is too powerful when they have to keep shooting down legislation from a boneheaded government that just can't seem to draft legislation that doesn't violate people's rights.

[cybercoma]

Don't you think it might be a good idea to let Parliament legislate the will of Canadians...as was intended from the very foundations of our system of government?

If you understood the purpose of constitutional law, then you wouldn't even have to ask this question. In order to be just, democracy has its limits. If the majority of Canadians wanted to march First Nation straight into gas chambers, should a law like that stand simply because it's the "democratic will of the nation"?

[Smallc]

Uh, no. The point of the Senate is to balance the concern of the regions.

Which makes no sense seeing as the regions don't exist. Every other country gets it. Not us, apparently.

[Smallc]

Because when someone disagrees with you on this forum, you're supposed to insult their intelligence. Duh.

Because telling me I'm starting to get it was a tribute to my intelligence?

[Smallc]

But the point is that the provinces did compromise. They got what they asked for and more in the case of the Western provinces. They only wanted 4 senators in most cases and the Constitution Act of 1915 gave them all 6.

And now it's 2015, where the status qou makes no sense whatsoever.

[Smallc]

If you understood the purpose of constitutional law, then you wouldn't even have to ask this question. In order to be just, democracy has its limits. If the majority of Canadians wanted to march First Nation straight into gas chambers, should a law like that stand simply because it's the "democratic will of the nation"?

Understanding Constitutional law while at the same time understanding that parts of it may have been a mistake, while stating the reality of the original supremacy of parliament - those things aren't in conflict. It's my opinion that we took too much power from parliament. Allendments for the Constitution should have remained the responsibility of Parliament.

[Smallc]

This is not true either. We're one of the only countries with a mechanism like the Notwithstanding Clause that allows the government to completely disregard constitutional rulings by the high court. The only reason people like you and other extreme rightwing radicals think the court is TOO powerful is because the Conservative can't write legislation for crap. They don't seem to understand that the laws in our country need to be just, can't violate people's rights, and can't discriminate. So it certainly looks like the SCC is too powerful when they have to keep shooting down legislation from a boneheaded government that just can't seem to draft legislation that doesn't violate people's rights.

The Court has been making decisions that they should have left to Parliament, as they did with the 2005 decision on gay marriage. Some things they rule on are perfectly fine - the rules for amending the senate for example - they were 100% right. Some things, such as a the recent mandatory minimums for gun crime decision where the minority side basically said...we shouldn't be ruling on overreaching hypotheticals as it sets a dangerous precedent, should give you pause.

[Bob Macadoo]

And now it's 2015, where the status qou makes no sense whatsoever.

That's what happens when you sign "contracts". All parties must agree to terms. You can't just "update" terms b/c a couple of parties think so. You have to be willing to quash it all and start over and understand other parties might have more terms that will be angering.

Being someone who's experienced life in "over-represented" region and "powerful" region I can say that we need the current rep. level......Atlantic can't be bullied over......you'll create more isolationism.......but at the same time you can't hand them equal power to the "central" figures of Canada........we have to recognize that Canada as it is today.....didn't appear out of thin air.......founding fathers put hard work in to grow this nation and entice regions to join.

Did BC deserve at the time of joining distinction.......probably......but they signed on without it. You want to open the terms.....accept all comers to the table and responses you may not like.

[Smallc]

That's what happens when you sign "contracts". All parties must agree to terms. You can't just "update" terms b/c a couple of parties think so.

We've done that already before in so many other areas of our country to make things work better. What makes this unique is the difficulty that comes in amending the Constitution.

How Canada got here is less relevant to how Canada is supposed to work. All of this leads me even further down the path of just get rid of it. The Senate makes no sense as configured and it's clear from here that it never will.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Smallc

[Bob Macadoo]

We've done that already before in so many other areas of our country to make things work better. What makes this unique is the difficulty that comes in amending the Constitution.

How Canada got here is less relevant to how Canada is supposed to work. All of this leads me even further down the path of just get rid of it. The Senate makes no sense as condigured and it's clear from here that it never will.

Exactly......this a huge muli-term contract.....not as easy as a single item agreement. So where in confederation are you willing to concede to achieve your goal? Might does NOT make right as much as huge pop. or huge GDPs think it may.

If N. ON. decided to splinter off.....they don't get automatically get a seat at the table......they negotiate in......and no guarantee......some parties might have a problem with those Kenora mooselovers rejoining our confederation.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's what happens when you sign "contracts".

Except we didn't sign contracts. The people who did are long dead.

Can I sign a contract that forces my (hypothetical) kids into slavery?

[Bob Macadoo]

A union boss can negotiate away future employees benefits for immediate cash.......c'est la vie. Kinda like how the West accepted terms for you to get in on this confederation craze.

Were you intentionally comparing confederation to slavery......or was that freudian?

[cybercoma]

Except we didn't sign contracts. The people who did are long dead.

Can I sign a contract that forces my (hypothetical) kids into slavery?

Actually, the Crown still exists.

[-1=e^ipi]

Actually, the Crown still exists.

And the Crown is not me, or you, or anyone alive today. This argument that we cannot change anything because we signed contracts is nonsense because no one alive today consented to any of these 'contracts'.

[Smallc]

And the Crown is not me, or you, or anyone alive today.

The Queen is the personification of the eternal Crown, actually. The governor General is her representative in Canada.

[cybercoma]

And the Crown is not me, or you, or anyone alive today. This argument that we cannot change anything because we signed contracts is nonsense because no one alive today consented to any of these 'contracts'.

You consent through the Social Contract. Otherwise, legislation would expire every generation.

[Bryan]

Otherwise, legislation would expire every generation.

That's a good idea. Rather than people fearing reopening the constitution, it should be mandatory that we at least re-examine it after a certain passage of time.

[-1=e^ipi]

You consent through the Social Contract.

No I don't. I have never consented via Social Contract to recognize the moral authority of 'the crown'.

Otherwise, legislation would expire every generation.

What should be != what is. What is legal is not necessarily what is moral. Laws should have a logical or moral basis to begin with, then you wouldn't need to come up with all this nonsense about 'us' signing contracts (before we were alive) or consenting to an arrangement via 'social contract' to justify this unjust nonsense. With respect to the senate, the current arrangement is unjust (ex. PEI getting far more representation per km^2 or per capita than BC), so it should be changed.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's a good idea. Rather than people fearing reopening the constitution, it should be mandatory that we at least re-examine it after a certain passage of time.

Good god, don't you think the SCC is already busy enough, especially with Harper continually trying to derail it.

[Bryan]

Good god, don't you think the SCC is already busy enough, especially with Harper continually trying to derail it.

Another good point -- while revising the constitution, make sure to make clear restrictions on what the SCC is and is not allowed to rule on.