Is the Charter finished?

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting battle....the loyalists who worship "The Crown" vs. the republicans who stand for governance by "The People".

 

 

 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Well, there is a pesky little thing called the "rule of law" whereby courts serve as a check on governments. As far as I'm aware, this principle applies in all democratic jurisdictions. There are certainly instances where one can criticize judicial overreach and where use of the notwithstanding clause might be appropriate. But is this one of those instances? Hmmm... it's hard to figure how it might be. I believe the court ruling released yesterday acknowledged that the province has the right to make changes regarding municipal elections but held that based on democratic principles this can't be done in the middle of an election period. It seems pretty sound logic to me. Doug Ford is obviously in a huff for having his bluff called by an unelected judge. However, I believe all judges are appointed in this country, suggesting that Ford disrespects the role of the judiciary. We have to ask whether it's dangerous to democracy to tolerate Ford's antics? What if he were to gerrymander ridings for the next election to ensure the re-election of his party and invoke the notwithstanding clause to get away with this? Sure, it would be within his authority to do so, but would it serve the interests of the province's voters? What we're talking about here is the slippery slope, which Ford seems willing to tilt to a very steep angle.

If gerrymandering ridings for a next election could have been done the liberals and socialists and the red tories would have done so decades ago. I doubt that would go very far if any party tried to do so. Then one would see that democracy is one big joke for sure. All Ford is doing here is pretty much trying to point out here that he is suppose to be running Ontario and not this radical judge. If a Premier wants to cut wards than that is his right to do so. Challenging what Ford is doing here is a waste of taxpayer's tax dollars and is being done by a bunch of crybaby sour pusses who lost an election. If it means cutting taxes and government and not causing any problems for the taxpayer than why not. The taxpayer's should be delighted. 

This is just one of many trials and tribulations that Ford will have to face and deal with now that he is the Premier of Ontario, and where the leftist liberals and socialists and their liberal supporting leftist media will attack him on everything now that they do not agree with and will eat into their forced liberal and socialist programs and agendas that the majority of the people of Ontario never asked for. We see the same thing happening against Trump by the leftists liberal losers in America. They all see themselves losing their communist power and control over we the people. Ford is truly a breathe of politically incorrect fresh air for Ontario and the Ontario people from all of the boring and stuffiness and corruption that most of our politicians have and are still committing today too Canada and Canadians. Anyone who has any common sense and logic and who believes in more freedom, less government and less taxes should get behind Ford instead of attacking Ford. Ford is the change that Canada and Canadians need these days. My opinion.   

[turningrite]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

Apparently, Ford had already talked about this since July.  It's not like as if it's been sprung from out of nowhere.  If some MPs who are running agree to this change - I've heard of one who was interviewed, and who's still going to run - I don't see any reason why others can't, if they still want to.   True, the parameters had changed.   Well, in life.....sometimes s*** happens.  The unexpected occurs.   That's part of life.  Just look at our trade situation with the USA, as an example.  it's not like as if this contempt that trump harbors for Trudeau had sprung from out of nowhere - I've been saying it all along - Trudeau is going to reap what he was sowing.  I said I see Trump as someone who doesn't forget.

 

Let's see how these MPs can roll with the changes.   Those who can't, may not be suitable for the position anyway.

I've not heard of any council candidates who were informed of Ford's intention to reduce the size of council prior to rumors of this which first emerged on July 26 and Ford's subsequent announcement the next day that in fact he intended to pursue this agenda. July 27, by the way, was the day on which nominations for municipal council elections closed, according to the Ontario Municipal Elections Act (see link below). Perhaps some candidates with PC ties were privately aware of Ford's plan prior to it being officially announced (which, if true, would be really problematic) but one has to believe that as the mayor was not informed of Ford's agenda prior to July 26 or 27, well after nominations had been opened (on May 1, 2018) and fundraising and campaigning were well underway, Ford's plan was not widely known. It certainly wasn't in any direct way discussed during Ford's election campaign. It's not particularly surprising that some incumbent councillors don't oppose the changes as incumbency is a huge advantage in municipal elections. Newcomers who'd been drawn into the field for the expanded council are particularly disadvantaged by it. This is not a matter of Ford draining the swamp. It's a matter of Ford reducing the size of the swamp and putting a fence around it to keep newcomers out.

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page18735.aspx

Edited September 12, 2018 by turningrite

[Queenmandy85]

25 minutes ago, PIK said:

Ford was elected by the people the judges are not and this judge is a McGuinty judge,

Apparently, this Judge was not recommended by McGinty and, while Ford was elected as an MPP, he was appointed Premier.

[taxme]

56 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is liberal / republican propaganda. We are a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy. The ultimate authority under the Constitution resides in the Crown who receives advice from her ministers and acts with that advice in mind. 

Loyalty to the Crown is the primary doctrine of conservatism. The election of Judges takes away from the prerogatives of the Crown and is a step towards socialist republicanism. It would politicize the judiciary. Taxme, your statement quoted above tells me two things: you ate not a conservative and you don't know any judges. 

So, what you are really saying here is that Canada was never a democracy then? Uhmmm. So, the Crown decides our future and not we the people then? Uhmmm. Is this good? 

What I believe is that Canadians should have the right too more freedom, less government and less taxes, and if it means giving the finger to the Crown in order to have those rights than so be it. I will run the show and not the Crown. I am not property of the Crown. The Crown is my property. All this means is that radical leftist liberal judges will not be able to dictate to the majority who will then be forced to accept the tyranny of the minority. Ford is now dealing with a minority of leftist liberal snowflake losers here. 

The judiciary is already politicized and is pretty much there to deny the real and true rights that Canadians should have a right to and are entitled too. Your idea of conservatism is no doubt different to my idea of what conservatism should be all about. The majority must rule and no minority should be allowed to rule over the majority. Now that is democracy. How many people here do know a judge? Do you? Just asking. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

One of the prerogatives of the Crown is that she may ask for, and receive advice from anyone. In this particular case, it would seem she is following the advice of her First Minister, whom she appointed. My only concern with his advice is it will disrupt many people who have spent time and money preparing for an election under the old rules, only to have the rules change a few weeks into the election. This disruption punishes good citizens who have applied to give service to their community. I will discourage others from entering public service in future.

This judge is disrupting the political process. We have plenty of radical leftist liberal leaning judges in Canada who are not there to serve the majority but only to serve the radical minority. Just about all of the rules and regulations and laws and orders created in Canada are in most cases not there for the benefit of the majority of we the people so much but for corporations, banksters, and special interest minority groups and are there to protect their rights and the rights of a minority. A minority of people should not have the right to rule over the majority but in Canada this is how things are done. This disruption is just another example of how taxpayer's tax dollars are being blown pretty much every day in Canada on something that should never have gone to court in the first place. That was disruption. The Trans Mountain pipeline is pretty much dead thanks to a minority of a bunch of commie misfits who have nothing to offer Canada but to destroy projects and the creation of thousands of new jobs. Those leftist crybaby establishment liberals at Toronto City Hall are a prime example of what those fools are all about. The wasting of taxpayer's tax dollars over nothing. It would appear as though a taxpayer revolution in Ontario is about to happen and some just don't like or want to see this revolution get going. Too bad for them.  

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

it means giving the finger to the Crown in order to have those rights than so be it. I will run the show and not the Crown

 Then you are a leftist liberal socialist. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) It is not my "idea of conservatism," it the doctrine of Harley, Pitt, Randolph and Sir Winston Churchill, MacDonald and Borden. Your idea of small Government and low taxes will not work in the 21st Century. Most of the first world 'democratic' nations are Constitutional Monarchies. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada to name a few.

I know at least a half dozen judges. My neighbour, a former neighbour, and a number I got to know when I was appearing in Court. They are all non-partisan and to my experience, impartial in their application of the law. The only one who's political affilliation I know is my neighbour who was active  in the Conservative Party before he "ceased to be a citizen." (His words, since he was no longer eligible to vote.)

Your views on the Charter could potentially change if you are unfortunate enough to need to avail yourself of it's provisions.

Your nostalgia for a WASP nation ignores the fact that Europeans have only been here for a brief time. We have been here for 410 years, 200 years in dominance. First nations have been here for over 50 centuries. 50 centuries vs 4. 

[Queenmandy85]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

serve the radical minority.

Just who is this radical minority, and how have they ruined your life?  Don't say taxes because our taxes are pretty low compared to others. If you don't like taxes, on't get sick. :-)

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Loyalty to the Crown is the primary doctrine of conservatism.

The monarch gets free handouts from cradle to grave. Sounds like socialism to me.

It is also conservatism though, as conservatism is the irrational desire to conserve the status quo / tradition; no matter how insane it is.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just who is this radical minority, and how have they ruined your life?  Don't say taxes because our taxes are pretty low compared to others. If you don't like taxes, on't get sick. :-)

Liberals and socialists are the radical fanatical fascists that have pretty much ruined Canada and all Canadians lives. Those two alone have pretty much bankrupted this country with all of their liberal and socialist programs and agendas that the majority of Canadians never asked for. Bull chit. Our taxes are not low at all. We pay plenty of taxes to help keep going all the radical changes that those leftist liberals and socialists have heaped on the taxpayer's of Canada for several decades now. Canadians are being robbed every day of their hard earnings by our politicians who only have and always will show contempt for we the people and their constant wasting of our tax dollars. Liberalism and socialism is not for free. 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 Then you are a leftist liberal socialist. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) It is not my "idea of conservatism," it the doctrine of Harley, Pitt, Randolph and Sir Winston Churchill, MacDonald and Borden. Your idea of small Government and low taxes will not work in the 21st Century. Most of the first world 'democratic' nations are Constitutional Monarchies. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada to name a few.

I know at least a half dozen judges. My neighbour, a former neighbour, and a number I got to know when I was appearing in Court. They are all non-partisan and to my experience, impartial in their application of the law. The only one who's political affilliation I know is my neighbour who was active  in the Conservative Party before he "ceased to be a citizen." (His words, since he was no longer eligible to vote.)

Your views on the Charter could potentially change if you are unfortunate enough to need to avail yourself of it's provisions.

Your nostalgia for a WASP nation ignores the fact that Europeans have only been here for a brief time. We have been here for 410 years, 200 years in dominance. First nations have been here for over 50 centuries. 50 centuries vs 4. 

Nope. I am a real and true conservative who believes in more freedom, less government and less taxes and that is not hard to implement at all here in Canada. My idea of a small government can work. It just takes the will of we the people to do something about it all. We the people cannot leave it up too our politicians as they only appear to know as to how to take free speech away and to give the people more government and then more taxes to run the government. Only defeatists like yourself will believe that nothing can be done.   

All I have left is WASP nostalgia now. It is being radically replaced by something even worse. It is called multiculturalism and multiculturalism will not only destroy this once great WASP/European nation if allowed to carry on but will also destroy whatever the native Indians have and what they receive from the WASP today. The people from the third world do not believe in free handouts. I must assume that you are native by your words written in your last sentence above, right?

Have you ever heard of the Kenniwick man? In Kennewick, Washington skeleton bones were unearthed and which after being tested were found to be the bones of a 9300 years old Caucasian man. Native Indians living in North America appear to be descendants of Asians who came to North America a very long time ago and maybe killed off the white people living there at the time. Hey, you never know, eh? If one looks closely at a native Indian the facial features appear to be that of an Asian. Just saying. 

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, taxme said:

Nope. I am a real and true conservative who believes in more freedom, less government and less taxes and that is not hard to implement at all here in Canada. My idea of a small government can work. It just takes the will of we the people to do something about it all. We the people cannot leave it up too our politicians as they only appear to know as to how to take free speech away and to give the people more government and then more taxes to run the government. Only defeatists like yourself will believe that nothing can be done.   

All I have left is WASP nostalgia now. It is being radically replaced by something even worse. It is called multiculturalism and multiculturalism will not only destroy this once great WASP/European nation if allowed to carry on but will also destroy whatever the native Indians have and what they receive from the WASP today. The people from the third world do not believe in free handouts. I must assume that you are native by your words written in your last sentence above, right?

Have you ever heard of the Kenniwick man? In Kennewick, Washington skeleton bones were unearthed and which after being tested were found to be the bones of a 9300 years old Caucasian man. Native Indians living in North America appear to be descendants of Asians who came to North America a very long time ago and maybe killed off the white people living there at the time. Hey, you never know, eh? If one looks closely at a native Indian the facial features appear to be that of an Asian. Just saying. 

Maybe we could start sticking pencils in people's hair to measure its curliness and measure people's nose-bridges too eh?

[Queenmandy85]

19 minutes ago, taxme said:

I must assume that you are native by your words written in your last sentence above, right?

No, I am a decendend from Norman English, Anglo-Saxons, Irish and Scottish. If you don't want to pay taxes, how will you have healthcare? 

The left of centre segment of the population is the majority, especially if you include my fellow Red Tories.  So who is this minority. Social "conservatives?" Perhaps the Reform Party?  I can tell you for certain radical Monarchists are definitely a minority and the Government definitely doesn't to us. Go figure.

I am skeptical of Kenwick man. Ever hear of Piltdown Man? I'm not saying it is a hoax, just that I know nothing of it. I would have thought it would have been featured on Quirks and Quarks.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Centerpiece]

Interesting kerfuffle - because at the individual level - I can't really see whose rights or freedoms were infringed on. Voters - who mostly stay home for municipal elections? The judge says they would be confused. Pretty subjective and quite frankly, BS. If anything, they would be MORE aware of who to vote for with all this publicity. Voter representation? How does this judge KNOW that they will be less represented after the city makes the necessary adjustments to help support the councilors with large constituencies - like other large cities around the world? Answer - he doesn't. Some failed candidates spent a bit of money? So what - reimburse them if necessary. Big clue to the judge's bias? He said it appeared it was done in a fit of "pique". How does HE know it didn't have all-party agreement? He doesn't - he's just taking the words of the litigants. Tell me specifically whose rights or freedoms were infringed - in such an irreconcilable fashion that democratic legislation HAD to be struck down.

And if the Supreme Court overturns the decision? That validates Ford's position and will give credibility to the use of the notwithstanding clause - and hopefully, give pause to the courts to more carefully weigh the real-world impact on individual rights/freedoms against the intent/value of the legislation.

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No, I am a decendend from Norman English, Anglo-Saxons, Irish and Scottish. If you don't want to pay taxes, how will you have healthcare? 

The left of centre segment of the population is the majority, especially if you include my fellow Red Tories. 

I am skeptical of Kenwick man. Ever hear of Piltdown Man? I'm not saying it is a hoax, just that I know nothing of it. I would have thought it would have been featured on Quirks and Quarks.

I never said that we should never pay taxes. But we are paying plenty of taxes for programs and agendas that Canadians never asked for but are being forced to pay for. Multiculturalism and foreign aid being two of them. I guess I must be somewhat of a socialist because I do like having free healthcare although I am still paying for healthcare out of my taxes. So, is it really free? 

I wonder as to how many are there left of those left of center people around and who maybe have had enough of the liberals and Trudeau nonsense. The next election will tell us for sure.  

I believe the Kennewick story. 

 

[taxme]

14 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Interesting kerfuffle - because at the individual level - I can't really see whose rights or freedoms were infringed on. Voters - who mostly stay home for municipal elections? The judge says they would be confused. Pretty subjective and quite frankly, BS. If anything, they would be MORE aware of who to vote for with all this publicity. Voter representation? How does this judge KNOW that they will be less represented after the city makes the necessary adjustments to help support the councilors with large constituencies - like other large cities around the world? Answer - he doesn't. Some failed candidates spent a bit of money? So what - reimburse them if necessary. Big clue to the judge's bias? He said it appeared it was done in a fit of "pique". How does HE know it didn't have all-party agreement? He doesn't - he's just taking the words of the litigants. Tell me specifically whose rights or freedoms were infringed - in such an irreconcilable fashion that democratic legislation HAD to be struck down.

And if the Supreme Court overturns the decision? That validates Ford's position and will give credibility to the use of the notwithstanding clause - and hopefully, give pause to the courts to more carefully weigh the real-world impact on individual rights/freedoms against the intent/value of the legislation.

Personally, I think that just about all courts all over this land are fully loaded with leftist liberal social justice warrior judges as far as I am concerned. All judges have their biases and at times will go with their biases even if they know that they are violating someone's rights and freedoms. It's very easy for judges to interpret a law or a bill passed. Just my opinion of course. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by taxme

[taxme]

 

Cancel post. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by taxme

[taxme]

25 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Maybe we could start sticking pencils in people's hair to measure its curliness and measure people's nose-bridges too eh?

What we all should be doing is to start giving a shit about what our politicians and judges are doing every day with our every day lives. 

[cannuck]

Fascinating to see how this discussion is playing out.

Questioning what IS "conservatism" and what is our true form of government is valid and worthwhile to pursue.

My own humble opinion on the matters are that:  

Canada is a declared structural constitutional monarchy, but in reality functions as a democracy - for the most part.

The Charter was drafted by some extremely radical leftists, and I believe the notwithstanding clause was the hand of Alan Blakeney seen in his prodigy Roy Romanow.   Jean Chretien could not be said to be from anywhere near the right side (but will grant him some middle ground) of the spectrum, and the bloody lot of them were lawyers - a potential conflict of interest when it comes to who has precedent in final decisions - but even this wonky co-alition of the left was able to clearly see the threat of the judiciary running out of control vis-a-vis public interest.

Queen Mandy:  While I can agree for the most part with much of what you write, you have stepped a mile over the line when it comes to the judiciary and its "impartial" status of being non-partisan.  I can tell you from having sat in the "back rooms" that almost EVERY appointment contains a considerable element of the partisan contribution to be left behind by each appointment.   It was so bad that even Romanow (who was master of flagrantly abusing power and privilege) saw fit to protect us from it.

 

 

[eyeball]

On 9/11/2018 at 3:45 AM, -1=e^ipi said:

Our charter is terrible. Unfortunately, idiots blinded by nationalism pretend it's the best thing in the world, often without having read it.

Are there examples you can point to that are better, in terms of application and outcomes?

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I know at least a half dozen judges. My neighbour, a former neighbour, and a number I got to know when I was appearing in Court. They are all non-partisan and to my experience, impartial in their application of the law.

How would YOU know how they decide cases? I doubt they explain them to you. And 'impartial' most likely means they tend to agree with your political views.

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Your nostalgia for a WASP nation ignores the fact that Europeans have only been here for a brief time. We have been here for 410 years, 200 years in dominance. First nations have been here for over 50 centuries. 50 centuries vs 4. 

50 centuries with ZERO accomplishment is not much of a recommendation for admiration.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

1.) Canada is a declared structural constitutional monarchy, but in reality functions as a democracy - for the most part.

2.) The Charter was drafted by some extremely radical leftists, and I believe the notwithstanding clause was the hand of Alan Blakeney seen in his prodigy Roy Romanow.   Jean Chretien could not be said to be from anywhere near the right side (but will grant him some middle ground) of the spectrum, and the bloody lot of them were lawyers - a potential conflict of interest when it comes to who has precedent in final decisions - but even this wonky co-alition of the left was able to clearly see the threat of the judiciary running out of control vis-a-vis public interest.

3.) Queen Mandy:  While I can agree for the most part with much of what you write, you have stepped a mile over the line when it comes to the judiciary and its "impartial" status of being non-partisan.  I can tell you from having sat in the "back rooms" that almost EVERY appointment contains a considerable element of the partisan contribution to be left behind by each appointment.   It was so bad that even Romanow (who was master of flagrantly abusing power and privilege) saw fit to protect us from it.

 

1.) Our "constitutional monarchy" is by historical legacy a democracy. Its roots extend back to limitations imposed on the monarchy (i.e. the state) by the Magna Carta and more relevantly as a result of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution in the 1600s, which served to firmly establish the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

2.) The Charter undermines the British legal tradition of  parliamentary supremacy, a reality the notwithstanding clause intended to limit. I think the Charter reflects the world view of its principal architect, Pierre Trudeau, and his inner circle, however it's mainly grounded in a philosophy of protecting citizens from the state, and particularly from the arbitrary application of state authority, which in its own right isn't a particularly leftish notion. There has been broad and in some cases fair criticism of the tendency of the courts to become overly involved in matters of public policy. The notwithstanding clause was promoted by both right and left wing provincial politicians to address concerns about judicial overreach, however in practice it has seldom been invoked. Brian Mulroney, a PC prime minister not reputed to have been a lefty, apparently opposed the clause on grounds that it effectively rendered the Charter redundant. Ford, a PC provincial premier, seems intent on proving him correct, which at the very least seems ironic.

3.) Are appointed judges impartial? The question can only be answered by considering the alternative, an elected judiciary where judges clearly wouldn't be impartial. As far as I'm aware, all judges are lawyers, who by definition are reasonably well-educated and therefore more likely to hew to an elitist perspective on society. Unless we move to a system of citizen judges who are removed from the legal profession, a role generally invested in juries, the possibility of creating an entirely impartial judiciary is a pipe dream. Perhaps we need to give juries a broader role in esoteric constitutional debates. Would a jury, for instance, have awarded Khadr $10 million? Would a judge have made such an award? Likely not in the first case and possibly not in the second, had the Trudeau government not circumvented the process to impose its own interpretation of Charter rights. Where interpretation of the Charter is concerned, it seems to me we're no better served by politicians than we are by the courts.

Edited September 12, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

21 hours ago, taxme said:

Doug Ford is really starting to remind me of Trump. An non-establishment politician outsider that has now taken the power and control away from and which is starting to piss off the liberal elite establishment and rightly so. Liberalism has been running and been allowed to ruin what was once a great WASP nation and who are now trying to turn it into a multicultural chit hole. 

Maybe it is time to start thinking about electing judges to the Supreme Court or any other court for that matter by we the people if we can in some way be allowed to do so. LOL. What that liberal social justice warrior of a judge did was to give the people the finger to Ford and to the people who voted for Ford. This should never have gone to a judge. Too many rules and regulations and laws are being either denied or allowed by our judges who appear to have been given the right to pretty much run and rule over this country and dam what the majority of we the people demand.

All judges pretty much have their own biases and political points of view and they will act accordingly to their views as to what they have to say yes or no too. If a judge believes in abortion than abortion it shall be. A judge is pretty much able to interpret the charter to fit his/her own personal beliefs and agenda. I think that it is time for Canadians to get rid of another Trudeau liberal document that has been really bad for Canada and the majority of Canadians. The charter protects minorities and the majority be damned. That is not democracy, that is tyranny by a minority, who get to give the finger to the majority. I would like to see the notwithstanding clause used more often to stop minorities or radical judges from being able to deny or abuse we the people majority. Would work for me. 

 

So you can see how wrong it was that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the election of Bush over Gore, who won the popular vote nationally and may have won Florida (we'll never know, since the Supreme Court shot down a recount).  Terrible that judges can be appointed on a partisan basis when they're supposed to be unbiased.

[turningrite]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

So you can see how wrong it was that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the election of Bush over Gore, who won the popular vote nationally and may have won Florida (we'll never know, since the Supreme Court shot down a recount).  Terrible that judges can be appointed on a partisan basis when they're supposed to be unbiased.

The Bush v. Gore SCOTUS decision will live in infamy as an atrocious affront to American democracy. It's been described as amounting to a legalized coup d'etat, a situation proponents of the world's self-proclaimed greatest democracy should ponder.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The Bush v. Gore SCOTUS decision will live in infamy as an atrocious affront to American democracy. It's been described as amounting to a legalized coup d'etat, a situation proponents of the world's self-proclaimed greatest democracy should ponder.

 

Nope....the U.S. is not a democracy...it is a constitutional republic...exemplified by the Bush v. Gore decision (14th Amendment - equal protection clause).

Ontario's laughable situation is made more so by worshipers of "The Crown".....but Americans aren't worried about it like this.