[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Huh only 14 states ever ratified the Constitution.

They all agreed to it by joining the Union.

Well surely Quebec consented to the terms of the constitution when it voted against sovereignty in 1995 though?

I am not sure how you get to that conclusion.  Voting not to separate is a long way off agreeing that the Constitution is fine.  I dont think the Constitution is fine but I wouldn't vote to separate.

[Barrister]

Huh only 14 states ever ratified the Constitution.

They all agreed to it by joining the Union.

Well surely Quebec consented to the terms of the constitution when it voted against sovereignty in 1995 though?

I am not sure how you get to that conclusion.  Voting not to separate is a long way off agreeing that the Constitution is fine.  I dont think the Constitution is fine but I wouldn't vote to separate.

I'm taking viper's logic though - that new states consented to the constitution when they entered the union.

[viper37]

I would waste my time.  You think the Constitution is perfectly adequate and it is not a problem if it applies to a province who has never signed it.

It's extremely unlikely that we'll be able to support doing the right thing regarding the Constitution if you won't even tell us what it is.

I mean, maybe you're right and we'll disagree with you whether it's the right thing or not, but the odds are probably still better if you let us know what you think.

We've discussed it before, the consensus was, there's no problem with the actual constitution, and it's not a problem if Quebec hasn't signed it even if it applies entirely to us.

I see it as unfair, you all see it as no big deal.

I'm not in a shape to do groundhog day all over again.  Meech was what Quebec wanted, that, and Charlottetown wich handcuffed Quebec has been rejected as being "too much for Quebec" in the past.

[crazy canuck]

Huh only 14 states ever ratified the Constitution.

They all agreed to it by joining the Union.

Well surely Quebec consented to the terms of the constitution when it voted against sovereignty in 1995 though?

I am not sure how you get to that conclusion.  Voting not to separate is a long way off agreeing that the Constitution is fine.  I dont think the Constitution is fine but I wouldn't vote to separate.

I'm taking viper's logic though - that new states consented to the constitution when they entered the union.

Ah I see.

[crazy canuck]

We've discussed it before, the consensus was, there's no problem with the actual constitution, and it's not a problem if Quebec hasn't signed it even if it applies entirely to us.

You have extremely selective reading if you believe there is a "consensus" here that there is "no problem with the actual constitution".

[viper37]

Well surely Quebec consented to the terms of the constitution when it voted against sovereignty in 1995 though?

Was that the question asked?  If I ask you what your favorite color is between blue and red, and from your answer I deduce you like pork chops, how is it logical?

[viper37]

We've discussed it before, the consensus was, there's no problem with the actual constitution, and it's not a problem if Quebec hasn't signed it even if it applies entirely to us.

You have extremely selective reading if you believe there is a "consensus" here that there is "no problem with the actual constitution".

That maybe.  We may revisit the subject when I'm in better shape.

[Jacob]

I hope so. To be honest, I didn't care much about Canadian politics while Meech and Charlottetown went down so I don't have much of a grasp on the substance of those, or indeed on what the controversies really were re: the Constitution.

I neither think the current Constitution is good or bad, because I'm mostly ignorant of the debate surrounding it. So Viper once you're up for it, I'd like us to go through the issues a bit so I can understand what the deal is

[crazy canuck]

I suspect this will be another one of those news stories that only has me vexed and the rest of you wondering why I am so upset.

But this time the Conservatives have gone beyond the Pale by attacking the Chief Justice and their suggestion that she did something improper.  They have now lost my support completely.  I will likely not be casting a ballet in a Federal election for the first time since I reached the age of majority - unless another party can convince me they are worthy of my vote.

Here is the link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-alleges-supreme-court-chief-justice-broke-key-rule-with-phone-call/article18382971/

The key points to note are the the government is accusing the Chief of contacting the government about a case that was before the Court - ie the Nadon case.

But that is not what happened at all.  As is usual practice she was consulted by the parliamentary screening committee on the government's short list of candidates before the appointment was made and she gave her comments as to the needs of the court and she had also raised the question of a Federal Court judge's eligibility.  There is nothing contraversial about this.  In fact the government obtained legal opinions from constitutional scholars on the issue because there was an open question as to its constutionality.  The Chief Justice did not prejudge the matter.  She merely raised the question.

It was only later after the appointment was challenged in litigation that the appointment became an issue before the Court.

I find it reprehensible that the government would misrepresent the facts to attack the Chief Justice in this manner.


I know, you are saying to yourself, of all the things to be upset about after everything that has occured.  But there it is.

[Grey Fox]

CC, I always match my outrage of anything ROC to your outrage.

[Jacob]

I take your complaint seriously, CC

[Josephus]

FWIW...Ontario's heading to the polls on June 12.

[Josephus]

Am very disappointed with Ontario's NDP and will likely vote Liberal. The Liberal's have put forth a fairly progressive (and pro-labour) budget, but the NDP decided not to support it thinking they can cash in on the scandals and win more seats. They may win more seats, but in a Conservative-led government. Stupid. I hope they get massacred.

[Jacob]

Hey CC, the Globe & Mail seems to agree with you: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/attempt-to-smear-chief-justice-an-affront-to-our-constitutional-system/article18394828/

[Josephus]

Hey CC, do they really call the Vancouver Art Gallery, the VAG?