DOCSLIB.ORG

The Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Constitution 2 The Constitution Key Terms 7/50 amending formula (p. 60) A rule for passing most amendments to the constitution, requiring the consent of Parliament and the legislatures of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of Cana- da’s population. Amending formula (p. 50) A set of rules governing how the constitution can be changed. Bill of Rights, 1960 (p. 69) A federal law detailing Canadians’ rights and freedoms vis-à-vis the fed- eral government. Cabinet solidarity (p. 45) The understanding that members of the executive remain cohesive and jointly responsible for the government’s undertakings. Charlottetown Accord (p. 64) A failed accord in the early 1990s that proposed to renew the consti- tution, but was defeated in a national referendum. Charter of Rights and Freedoms (p. 51) A portion of the Constitution Act, 1982, enshrining Cana- dians’ core liberties and entitlements vis-à-vis their governments. Charterphiles (p. 75) Supporters of the enhanced role of judges in the Canadian rights regime. Charterphobes (p. 75) Opponents and skeptics of the enhanced role of judges in the Canadian rights regime. Charter-proof (p. 75) Pre-emptive steps taken by a government to ensure that its proposed legisla- tion withstands judicial review. Colonialism (p. 46) The imposition, practice, policy, or belief in the supremacy of European settler institutions over those of Aboriginal groups. Constitutional convention (p. 51) An unwritten rule based on custom that binds political actors to adhere to the traditions of the constitutional order. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Constitutional monarchy (p. 43) A system in which the sovereignty of the Crown is maintained, but exercised by elected officials according to prescribed rules. Constitutional order (p. 47) The body of written and unwritten rules that govern all laws in Canada. Crown (p. 43) The legal concept dictating the supremacy of the monarch over the executive, legisla- tive, and judicial branches of government. Dialogue model (p. 74) The notion that the definition of rights and freedoms is reached through the interaction of judges, legislatures, and executives. Direct democracy (p. 41) A system in which citizens make political decisions by voting on individual issues. Fathers of Confederation (p. 48) The colonial leaders who negotiated the terms of union forming the Dominion of Canada. Freedoms (p. 69) The autonomy to live and act without external restraint. Fusion of powers (p. 44) An intimate connection between the authority of the executive and the authority of the legislature. Gang of Eight (p. 60) The group of provinces united in opposing the federal government’s plans to patriate and centralize the Canadian constitution. Liberal democracy (p. 40) A system in which equality, rights, and freedoms are preserved through public debate and free and fair elections. Meech Lake Accord (p. 63) A failed constitutional amendment package in the late 1980s that would have recognized Quebec as a “distinct society.” Ministerial responsibility (p. 45) The understanding that ministers remain individually responsible for the activities undertaken by staff in their respective departments. Night of the Long Knives (p. 60) An incident in November 1981 in which the federal government and 9 of 10 provincial governments reached a deal to patriate the constitution, without the presence of Quebec government officials. Notwithstanding clause (p. 69) Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which permits legislatures Oakes test (p. 71) A model employed by the court to weigh the democratic benefits and assess the constitutionality of a law that breaches certain Charter rights. Parliamentary democracy (p. 39) A democratic system in which government executives must be supported by a majority of elected representatives in a legislature. Parliamentary supremacy (p. 69) A doctrine under which legislatures and executives, not courts, define key elements of public policy. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Patriation (p. 51) The process through which Canadian governments gained the authority to amend the country’s main constitutional documents. Reasonable limits clause (p. 70) Section 1 of the Charter, which allows governments to pass laws that would otherwise contravene rights and freedoms but which are deemed necessary to protect other democratic norms. Reference case (p. 52) A proceeding initiated by a government to seek the court’s opinion on the constitutionality of legislation. Representative democracy (p. 41) A system in which citizens elect officials to make political deci- sions on their behalf. Responsible government (p. 43) The constitutional principle whereby the executive (cabinet) must be supported by a majority of elected members of the legislature. Rights (p. 69) Legal claims or entitlements to have something or to act in a particular manner. Royal Proclamation of 1763 (p. 46) A British document setting out the terms of European settle- ment in North America following the Seven Years’ War. Rule of law (p. 40) The principle that no one is above the law, and that any powers granted to elect- ed or nonelected officials must be conferred by legislation. Self-government (p. 46) The inherent right of a people to sovereignty (or self-determination) over their own affairs. Sovereignty-association (p. 59) A legal arrangement whereby Quebec would be politically inde- pendent but maintain economic ties with Canada. to pass laws that breach certain rights and freedoms. Treaties (p. 46) Agreements between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples establishing mutual duties and obligations. Two-row wampum (p. 46) A ceremonial beaded belt symbolizing the parallel paths and equal-order relationship between the Crown and First Nations people. White paper (p. 59) A document outlining a policy commitment by government. Review Questions Multiple Choice Questions 1. Which parliamentary democracy system does the concept of “rule of law” best apply? a) Liberal democracy b) Representative democracy Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 c) Constitutional monarchy d) Responsible government 2. Who is Canada’s head of state? a) The lieutenant governor b) The prime minister c) The Queen d) The governor general 3. Who makes up the political executive (the “cabinet”)? a) The Crown and two legislative bodies b) The first minister and her or his ministers c) The governor general and three lieutenant governors d) The governor general and all lieutenant governors 4. Which of the following documents was designed to supposedly end the Seven Years’ War be- tween France and Britain and their respective Aboriginal allies? a) The Quebec Act of 1774 b) The Royal Proclamation of 1763 c) Act of the Union of 1840 d) Constitution Act of 1971 5. At the Night of the Long Knives the prime minister and nine premiers reached an agreement to patriate the constitution. Which province was not present? a) Manitoba b) Ontario c) British Columbia d) Quebec 6. Which of the following provinces was not part of the Gang of Eight? a) Ontario b) Saskatchewan c) Alberta d) Manitoba 7. When did the House of Commons pass a symbolic resolution declaring the Québécois “a nation within a united Canada”? a) 1876 b) 1981 c) 2006 d) 2015 8. Which of the following was not part of the “triple-E” Senate reform? a) Eligible: The senators must be eligible to run b) Effective: The Senate’s powers must be effective, not ornamental c) Equal: The Senate seats must be divided equally among provinces d) Elected: The Senators must be elected, not appointed Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 9. Which of the following is employed by the courts to weigh the democratic benefits and assess that constitutionality of a law that breaches certain Charter rights? a) Reasonably limits clause b) Notwithstanding clause c) Oakes test d) Equality rights 10. Which category of the Charter’s rights and freedoms does freedom of religion, thought, and be- lief fall under? a) Democratic freedoms b) Fundamental freedoms c) Equality rights d) Legal rights Discussion Questions 1. Why is it difficult for Aboriginal Canadians to achieve self-government in Canada? 2. How much influence do the courts have in influencing policy-making and deciding on constitu- tional affairs? 3. What were some of the key challenges faced by both the federal and provincial governments in patriating the constitution? Further Resources Websites Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html This link includes the official and fully documented Charter of Rights and Freedoms that out- lines individual sections and its corresponding right and/or freedom. Supreme Court of Canada http://www.scc-csc.ca/ This official Supreme Court of Canada website contains full documentation and references to all Supreme Court cases. The Canadian Constitution http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html This link provides more information on The Canadian Constitution. Parliament of Canada http://www.parl.gc.ca/default.aspx?Language=E Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 The official website of the Parliament of Canada, with information on parliamentary business, the House of Commons, Senate, and all its members. Your Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1356631760121/1356631904950 A more abbreviated guide to the specific rights and freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Government of Canada’s Approach
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zeynep Koçak-Şimşek* This Article
    M ARSILIUS OF P ADUA : T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACTARIAN Zeynep Koçak - Şimşek * This article aims to demonstrate that Marsilius of Padua' s Defensor Pacis (1324) encompasses the basics of the social contract theory. Marsilius arrives at the social contractarian theory drawing upon both his past and present political engagements, and the theoretical legal - political debates of his time. He reconciles his back ground in the city - state of Padua, which struggled with the Holy Roman Empire to keep its autonomous legal order of republican liberties, with his political tendency to and his engagement with the i mperial order. Yet, in constructing his political thought, he benefits immensely from the legal and political debates that had been going on since the beginning of the 10th century with the emergence of the Bologna law school, as well as the revival of both Aristotelian scholarship and Ulpian ' s contribution to th e Digest. All of this had a decisive impact on the scope of the debates. The legal debates sought the legitimate origin of the Holy Roman Emperor ' s sovereignty . H owever, by breaking sovereignty into parts as executive power and legislative power, Azo Portius introduced the possibility of the separation of powers into the debate. Armed with his engagement with the Aristotelian ' doctrine of the wisdom of the multitude ' and the renaissance of the Codex, Marsilius was able to further what Azo had dismantle d by shifting the power that underlay the sovereignty from a bundle of legislative and executive powers to merely legislative ones. Through a convention that he derived from l ex r egia, he constituted the first version of the social contract .
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Separation of Powers
    THEORY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS Introduction The three organs of the government—Legislature, Executive and Judiciary— perform the three essential functions of law-making, law-application and law- adjudication. This threefold division of governmental functions is universally accepted as the best way of organizing the government. These three functions are inter-related and inter-dependent. But these are performed by three different organs. The separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state. Under this model, the state is divided into three branches of legislature, executive, and judiciary, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with other branches. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in parliamentary systems where the executive and legislature are unified. Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. History Aristotle first mentioned the idea of a "mixed government" or hybrid government in his work Politics where he drew upon many of the constitutional forms in the city-states of Ancient Greece. In the Roman Republic, the Roman Senate, Consuls and the Assemblies showed an example of a mixed government according to Polybius. John Calvin (1509–1564) favoured a system of government that divided political power between democracy and aristocracy (mixed government). In order to reduce the danger of misuse of political power, Calvin suggested setting up of several political institutions which should complement and control each other in a system of checks and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • An Extended Separation of Powers Model As the Theoretical Basis For
    An extended separation of powers model as the theoretical basis for the representation of future generations Professor Joerg Chet Tremmel, PhD, PhD [email protected] Version 26 July 20131 forthcoming in: Birnbacher, Dieter / Thorseth, May (ed.) (2014): Roads to Sustainability. London: Earthscan Abstract The growing library on the representation of future generations provides the interested reader with more and more examples of institutions for intergenerational justice, e.g. the Commission for Future Generations in Israel, the Ombudsman for Future Generations in Hungary or the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Sustainable Development in Germany. However, the long-term success of this institutionalisation remains fragile as long as the classical separation of powers model dividing political power into legislative, executive and judicial branches is not called into question. This article argues that the theoretical starting point for any attempts to institutionalise sustainability should be an extension of the ruling model. The century-old separation of powers into three branches as designed by Montesquieu in 1748 is not fitting for modern times. A new four-powers model must include an institutional level that would bring the interests of posterity into the decision-making processes of today. The present demos of the 21st century can negatively affect the living conditions of future demos much more than in earlier times. In the 18th century in the course of the first introduction of democracy in a country in the modern sense of the word (i.e. a country other than an antique polis) the concept of ‘checks and balances’ evolved in the Federalist Papers. It was designed to protect parts of the population against the “tyranny of the majority”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule of Law, the Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence in Canada
    Chapter 48 The Rule of Law, the Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence in Canada Warren J. Newman* The Constitution of Canada was modelled on the British tradition of unwritten principles and conventions governing the exercise of legal power to produce a constitutional mon- archy, parliamentary democracy, and responsible government, as well as the American paradigm of constitutional supremacy embodied in written provisions, required in turn by the federal rather than unitary structure of the state. This hybrid model is reflected in the Canadian understanding of the rule of law, which is embodied implicitly in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867— Canada was to enjoy ‘a Constitution simi- lar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom’—and explicitly in the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (itself a part of the Constitution Act, 1982)— ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law’. The idea of the rule of law is also intrinsic to provisions such as section 7 of the Charter, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, and security of the per- son and the right not to be deprived thereof ‘except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice’; section 15, protecting and expanding upon Dicey’s1 understanding * BA, BCL, LL.B (McGill), LL.M (Osgoode), Ad E; of the Bars of Quebec and Ontario; Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Department of Justice of Canada. The views expressed in this chapter do not bind the Department. 1 Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion of Powers? Building Connections Between the Public Service and the Legislative Branch
    Feature Fusion of Powers? Building Connections Between the Public Service and the Legislative Branch As a former legislative intern, the author has had the opportunity to employ the knowledge of the legislative process he gained through his internship to great effect in his current role as a policy analyst with the federal public service. In this article he suggests this type of experience, if more widely available to public servants, could reinforce a sense of appreciation for the principle of parliamentary review, provide insight into how the legislative process can impact policy development, and allow them to develop their political acuity. Adam Walter rom January to June of 2014, I had the unique the non-partisan, professional public service.1 In my opportunity to be part of the British Columbia experience, the knowledge of the legislative process FLegislative Internship Program (BCLIP). This that I gained as a legislative intern has provided six-month program included five weeks working significant value in my career as a policy analyst in the in a Ministry in the British Columbia (BC) Public public service. The purpose of this article is to identify Service, one week working in the constituency office why and how knowledge of the legislative branch of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), and can be beneficial to public servants, and to identify over four months working within the Legislative opportunities in which current and aspiring public Assembly performing research and analysis for MLAs servants can increase their understanding of it. during the spring legislative session. As a result, I was able to observe the inner workings of the legislature, First, I outline the institutional relationship that the including Question Period, legislative committee legislative and executive branches of government have hearings, and debates on legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review in Kingdom and Dominions the Historical Foundations of Judicial Review in the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand
    University of Pennsylvania Judicial Review in Kingdom and Dominions The Historical Foundations of Judicial Review in the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand Abstract: Judicial review, whatever else it may be, provides a mechanism by which the judiciary can affect the implementation, contours, and the formulation of policy. As such, it provides a possible avenue of access to a variable ‘open’ state. Westminster democracies have historically avoided judicial review in order to concentrate policymaking authority in the legislature and responsible executive. In recent years a number of Westminster polities have incorporated and expanded judicial review. This paper explores how this occurred in three Westminster states, arguing that long-run processes shaped the conceptions of judges of their role in the constitutional order, affecting their willingness to assert powers of review. Importantly, structures of imperialism and federalism provided varying opportunities for the judiciary to assert this power. A full account of the emergence of judicial review needs to take account of these structural/institutional factors— the available resources of judges to assert a power to invalidate legislation and their institutionally shaped willingness to do so. I conclude with a discussion of how the different constructions of judicial review at the different moments in each state’s history affected the mobilization strategies of indigenous peoples, and the varying imposition of control by the state. David Bateman Doctoral Fellow – Penn Program in Ethnic Conflict
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers [1967]
    The Online Library of Liberty A Project Of Liberty Fund, Inc. M.J.C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers [1967] The Online Library Of Liberty This E-Book (PDF format) is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a private, non-profit, educational foundation established in 1960 to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. 2010 was the 50th anniversary year of the founding of Liberty Fund. It is part of the Online Library of Liberty web site http://oll.libertyfund.org, which was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. To find out more about the author or title, to use the site's powerful search engine, to see other titles in other formats (HTML, facsimile PDF), or to make use of the hundreds of essays, educational aids, and study guides, please visit the OLL web site. This title is also part of the Portable Library of Liberty DVD which contains over 1,000 books and quotes about liberty and power, and is available free of charge upon request. The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and web sites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, in present day Iraq. To find out more about Liberty Fund, Inc., or the Online Library of Liberty Project, please contact the Director at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Imbalance
    Volume 37 Issue 1 Winter Winter 2007 The Constitutional Imbalance Richard Albert Recommended Citation Richard Albert, The Constitutional Imbalance, 37 N.M. L. Rev. 1 (2007). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol37/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMBALANCE RICHARD ALBERT* I. INTRODUCTION The modem American judiciary bears little resemblance to the institution created by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Alexander Hamilton-a leading spokesperson for the Federalist forces that emerged victorious from the founding debates-famously predicted that thejudiciary would be the least dangerous of the three branches of government. We know now that Hamilton and the Federalists were wrong on this forecast. We also know that the Anti-Federalists were right. Indeed, the Anti-Federalists-an influential group of American founding statesmen who withheld their assent from the Constitution for various reasons - correctly presaged the future path of the American judiciary. Contemporary thinkers have echoed the cautionary words of the Anti-Federalists, arguing that the modern American judiciary has upset the constitutional balance that sustains the American project of democracy. According to one scholar, the judiciary has freely inserted itself into the political thicket, eroding the political question doctrine that once ensured that the voice of the people would be heard.2 According to another scholar, the judiciary has mooted popular discourse on important issues of conscience before those deliberations have even begun to bud.3 Still another argues that the judiciary has commandeered public institutions to substitute the people's judgment with its own.4 These and other increasingly frequent detours * J.D., B.A., Yale University.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: House, Government and Opposition
    A knowledge of the structure of the House of Representatives is important to an understanding of its mode of operation. The components or groups which make up the House and which are described in the text that follows are common to most parliamentary systems based on the Westminster model. The relationship and interaction between these components is at the heart of parliamentary activity. The nature of the relationships between the groups largely determines the operational effectiveness of the Parliament, particularly in relation to the Executive Government. The relationship between the groups is governed by a combination of constitutional provisions, convention and political reality, which can be simplified as follows: • Members are individually elected to represent constituents within each electoral Division and collectively form the House of Representatives.' ® In most cases Members belong to and support a particular political party.2 • The party (or parties'') having the support of the majority of Members becomes the • The party or the parties opposed to the party supporting the government form the • The party having the support of the majority of Members elects one of its members as leader, who is commissioned by the Governor-General as Prime Minister to form a Government. • The party supporting the Government may elect4, or the Prime Minister may appoint, a specified number of its members to be Ministers of State (the Ministry) who form the Federal Executive Council (the body which, in a formal sense, advises the Governor-General in the executive government of the Commonwealth) and who administer the Departments of State of the Commonwealth. © The full Ministry5, or a selected group from within the Ministry, becomes the principal policy and decision-making group of government which is commonly known as the Cabinet.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Democracy in a Parliamentary System*
    CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY IN A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM* KAZUYUKI TAKAHASHI* * I INTRODUCTION Since recovering its independence in 1952, Japan has never experienced a change of government in a proper sense. Power has been held without interruption, first by the Liberal Party and then by the Liberal Democratic Party ("LDP"), which was formed in 1955 when the Liberal and Democratic Parties merged. It is often said that there is no democracy without a change of government. Does this mean that Japan has not yet established a democracy? I would not say so. No doubt the Japanese have succeeded in running their government in a democratic manner, at least compared to the prewar era. But democracy has different styles and qualities, and Japan has achieved a democracy that has never been tested by a transfer of power. A change of government has two implications for the quality of democracy. First, a change of government confirms the existence of democracy. There is no better proof that democracy exists than the fact that a change of government takes place following a free popular election. Second, popular belief in the possibility of a change of government, supported and strengthened by actual experience, enables the people to make a real choice. Where there is no significant chance of altering government, elections lose their meaning. The people are forced either to accept the existing government or embrace uncertainty by rejecting it. But rejecting the government in power while not being able to conceive of an alternative is a hard venture. Hard as it may be, however, rejection is possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority
    French Politics, 2005, 3, (323–351) r 2005 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1476-3419/05 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/fp Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns Matthew Søberg Shugart Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Maurice Duverger in 1980 advanced the concept of a ‘semi-presidential’ regime: a mix of a popularly elected and powerful presidency with a prime minister heading a cabinet subject to assembly confidence.We can understand the performance of these regimes through a neo-Madisonian perspective that stresses agency relations between institutional actors.Executive and legislature as separate agents of the electorate — as in presidentialism — necessitates transactional interbranch relations.Fusion of powers — as in parliamentarism — means an executive that is hierarchically subordinated to the legislature.The dual executive of a semi- presidential system mixes a transactional executive-legislative relationship with a hierarchical one.The advantages of this perspective include allowing delinea- tion of semi-presidentialism from other hybrids, highlighting subtypes (premier- presidential and president-parliamentary) according to variations in the locus of transactional and hierarchical institutional relationships, and predicting which observed relationships between actors derive from relatively immutable constitutional features and which from more transitory features such as partisan alignments. French Politics
    [Show full text]
  • The Design of the Executive Branch
    A Practical Guide to Constitution Building: The Design of the Executive Branch Markus Böckenförde This paper appears as chapter 4 of International IDEA’s publication A Practical Guide to Constitution Building. The full Guide is available in PDF and as an e-book at <http://www.idea.int> and includes an introductory chapter (chapter 1) and chapters on principles and cross-cutting themes in constitution building (chapter 2), building a culture of human rights (chapter 3), constitution building and the design of the legislature and the judiciary (chapters 5 and 6), and decentralized forms of government in relation to constitution building (chapter 7). International IDEA resources on Constitution Building A Practical Guide to Constitution Building: The Design of the Executive Branch © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), 2011 This publication is independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council of Member States, or those of the donors. Applications for permission to reproduce all or any part of this publication should be made to: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) Strömsborg SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46-8-698 37 00 Fax: +46-8-20 24 22 Email: [email protected] Website: www.idea.int Design and layout by: Turbo Design, Ramallah Printed by: Bulls Graphics, Sweden Cover design by: Turbo Design, Ramallah Cover illustration by: Sharif Sarhan ISBN: 978-91-86565-31-2 This publication is produced as part of the Constitution Building Programme implemented by International IDEA with funding from the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    [Show full text]