Mayor Johnson, Chicago

[reason10]

Your federal Civil Rights Act would be unconstitutional in Canada.

We in Canada have a different way of protecting minority right

Of course.  It's so fcking COLD there that minorities move south. You don't need to protect black people when there aren't any black people.

 

[August1991]

12 hours ago, reason10 said:

----

Of course.  It's so fcking COLD there that minorities move south. You don't need to protect black people when there aren't any black people.

 

1. The State should not dictate private choices.

2. In Canada, we have a federal State. As an individual Canadian, our federal government is restricted in what it can do. 

====

The US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act is unthinkable in Canada.

We do things differently.

Edited March 16 by August1991

[August1991]

In Canada, we passed a federal Official Languages Act - and then a Charter of Rights.

These measures protected individuals.

======

Many people hate Trudeau Snr. But I recognize his desire to protect ordinary people.

[August1991]

Lévesque was a true democrat.

Trudeau was a federalist.

[reason10]

1. The State should not dictate private choices.

Your gun laws contradict that statement.

2. In Canada, we have a federal State. As an individual Canadian, our federal government is restricted in what it can do. 

So Mexican illegal aliens could set up a child prostitution ring and your government would have nothing to say about it?

The US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act is unthinkable in Canada.

It's unthinkable to guarantee the voting rights of all, regardless of race?

 

 

 

 

[August1991]

As a clueless guy in Quebec, what's up?

[reason10]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:45 PM, August1991 said:

 

 

====

1. The State should not dictate private choices.

Concerning the Canadian health care boondoggle, paid for heavily by increased taxes, I'd say YOUR state is DEFINITELY dictating private choices. In this case, your state is definitely TAKING AWAY the choices of people.

The US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act is unthinkable in Canada.

We do things differently.

We certainly do. If certain provinces had SLAVERY, Canada would not go to war with itself to prevent those provinces from engaging in slavery.

 

[August1991]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:03 AM, reason10 said:

1. The State should not dictate private choices.

Your gun laws contradict that statement.

Precisely.

In Canada, the State can forbid an individual's right to a nuclear weapon - or indeed, any weapon.

On this question, nothing in Canada's charter of rights restricts the State.

====

Your Second Amendment is a remarkable restriction on the State. But the phrase "well-ordered militia" has always struck me.

Edited April 5 by August1991

[August1991]

OMG.

What a thread drift.

====

Returning to my OP:

With the voting methods now in place since Covid, the US is now a one party state: like California, New York, Illinois.

For the Democrats, this is a true America. The Democrats now know how to get ordinary people to vote.

 

[August1991]

AFAIK, this municipal election in Chicago was perfectly legitimate. (What do I know?)

But I note that some 500,000 people voted in a city of several million.

=====

Democrats used to talk about voter registration. In 2024, they'll explain how to submit your ballot. 

[August1991]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:03 AM, reason10 said:

1. The State should not dictate private choices.

Your gun laws contradict that statement.

2. In Canada, we have a federal State. As an individual Canadian, our federal government is restricted in what it can do. 

So Mexican illegal aliens could set up a child prostitution ring and your government would have nothing to say about it?

The US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act is unthinkable in Canada.

It's unthinkable to guarantee the voting rights of all, regardless of race?

 

 

 

 

reason10, let's take this debate to a different thread:

US Bill of Rights vs Canada's Charter of Rights. 

[reason10]

15 hours ago, August1991 said:

Precisely.

In Canada, the State can forbid an individual's right to a nuclear weapon - or indeed, any weapon.

On this question, nothing in Canada's charter of rights restricts the State.

====

Your Second Amendment is a remarkable restriction on the State. But the phrase "well-ordered militia" has always struck me.

One has to understand the history surrounding when the Second Amendment was ratified. In the days of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army (led by General Washington) was no match for the redcoats led by Cornwallis. The common folk of the countryside were recruited to fight in small pockets here and there. You could say that common folk were the ones who invented guerilla warfare, (shooting from behind cover and from everywhere, rather than in straight lines like the regular armies.) Those common folk ALL were armed. They were referred to as Militias.

They were well organized and they helped turn the tide of the Revolutionary War, hence their inclusion into the second most important amendment to the  United States Constitution.

[reason10]

15 hours ago, August1991 said:

reason10, let's take this debate to a different thread:

US Bill of Rights vs Canada's Charter of Rights. 

The major difference: The American Bill of Rights is 10 Amendments. The Canadian Charter Of Rights is 38 sections.

The American constitution and our 27 Amendments (as well as the US Code) has created such a legal mess that EVERY law office has to have stacks and stacks of law books, as well as (at least back in the 90s) Westlaw, a very expensive online case file.

I don't think I'd want to be a lawyer in Canada. God knows how many MORE law books a lawyer would need there, with such a long constitution.

[August1991]

On 4/6/2023 at 8:07 AM, reason10 said:

One has to understand the history surrounding when the Second Amendment was ratified....

Rather, let's debate this in a different thread.

====

But how Johnson won, I'm all ears.

Edited April 8 by August1991