[Yank-in-NY]

VitaminC VitaminC:

You wanna explain that comment?

Well first of all let me just say there is no such thing as a “superior form of government”, each system has pros and cons, everyone has to examine each system and deem what is more important, it is crucial to seek out flaws and correct them, rather than accepting the status quo.

The current system Canada is using is somewhat of a mix of American and British style form of government, I say somewhat because you have a semblance of separation of powers as opposed to the British form of government which virtually has none.

The American system of government is characterized by one (rather unique) element, separation of powers within the three branches of government, or what is commonly known as checks and balances. Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, The Executive and The Judicial. Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch. A simple example; the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

In the parliamentary system (UK) the exectuive branch of government holds to much power and leaves virtually no room for the judicial and legislative branch (legislative happens to coincide with the executive branch) to administer any checks or balances. This is not necessarily the case in Canada, as a law passed by the House can be challenged by the Supreme Court, and that entity can deem it to be unconstitutional. However, even if the Supreme Court strikes down a law the leading party (providing it is a majority) can invoke the “notwithstanding clause”.

Which brings me to your Charter of Rights & Freedoms and why I deem it to limit freedoms as opposed to expanding them. Article 1 of your Charter of Rights & Freedoms;

1.The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This declaration serves only one purpose, to apply limits and has been commonly (and justifiably) referred to as the limitations clause. However as I mentioned, you do have a semblance of checks and balances, so before the government attempts to pass any such law that imposes limits, it must first pass the “Oakes Test”.

Next you have the “notwithstanding clause”. It allows the Federal or any Provincial government to opt-out of any portion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which deals with; fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, the press, free assembly and association and guarantees of equality, a clause that is “unique” in any Constitution I have read.

[PluggyRug]

VitaminC VitaminC:

I'm sure when you're older you will learn to think before you speak...or type.

Heyzeus man, that very statement shows that you need to heed your own words.

[Yank-in-NY]

Tman1 Tman1:

A Westminster form of government allows whoever is in power to be defeated and forced into an election at any time.

Your argument holds true when there is a minority government.

Tman1 Tman1:

The lower house also has the ability to reject or block certain bills or legislation by a no-confidence vote.

Read above.

Tman1 Tman1:

I have no clue where you get the idea that people's freedoms are taken away by our Charter of Rights & Freedoms and I emphasize heavily on the word freedoms.

I also emphasized on freedoms in response to VitaminC, however I should have been more accurate and said limit freedoms.

Tman1 Tman1:

However thats not to say that certain...things can be exploited by some politicians in order to grant them more power......

Politicians can only exploit within the confines of the law, unless you are talking about dictatorships, when the law exists and the government invokes articles of the law, it isn't exploitation.

Tman1 Tman1:

because we in Canada have a little problem called ethics.

I'm really not interested in emotional nationalistic responses, try and stay within the framework of form of government.

[Yank-in-NY]

VitaminC VitaminC:

We'd lose of of course...But hey, its better to be dead than an American.

Well don't let us stop you, make a preemptive call and jump off a bridge.

[Tman1]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

Your argument holds true when there is a minority government.

Well, it wasn't really any sort of argument but rather fact. The Statute of Westminster gave these blocking powers because of the King-Byng Affair. If you want to construe it as an argument, in my belief, a Westminster form of government does not give more power to the government nor to the Prime Minister because this country was structured upon giving more power to the provinces, not the central government and like any other form of government has it's advantages and disadvantages. That is why we have a separate head of state, namely the Governor General which you no doubt know is mostly symbolic.

$1:

I also emphasized on freedoms in response to VitaminC, however I should have been more accurate and said limit freedoms.

Of course there are limited freedoms, all Constitutions have them including yours. What about Bush's passing of that bill saying the government can spy on it's citizens? I believe there was a whole argument on whether he had the ability to pass that or not.

$1:

Politicians can only exploit within the confines of the law, unless you are talking about dictatorships, when the law exists and the government invokes articles of the law, it isn't exploitation.

Didn't you know? This is Canada where dictators rule. In any case, what politicians believe to be the confines of the law differs than what normal people do. It happens all the time in Canada and elsewhere.

Tman1 Wrote:

$1:

because we in Canada have a little problem called ethics.

$1:

I'm really not interested in emotional nationalistic responses, try and stay within the framework of form of government.

That was neither an emotional nor nationalistic response and I honestly don't see how you construed it as one. Perhaps you should read the full sentence instead of cutting it off. Politicians in Canada do have a problem with ethics in this country or haven't you been following up on the current failures of Westminster structure of government up here?

[Yank-in-NY]

Tman1 Tman1:

Well, it wasn't really any sort of argument but rather fact. The Statute of Westminster gave these blocking powers because of the King-Byng Affair. If you want to construe it as an argument, in my belief, a Westminster form of government does not give more power to the government nor to the Prime Minister because this country was structured upon giving more power to the provinces, not the central government and like any other form of government has it's advantages and disadvantages. That is why we have a separate head of state, namely the Governor General which you no doubt know is mostly symbolic.

Like I said, all forms of government have flaws, no system is perfect, I just happen to hold an opinion that the Parliamentary system gives powers to the government without checks and balances. Would you agree or disagree?

Tman1 Tman1:

Of course there are limited freedoms, all Constitutions have them including yours. What about Bush's passing of that bill saying the government can spy on it's citizens?

A bill isn't part of the constitution. A bill can pass the legislative branch and be questioned by the judicial branch. Such is the case with the wiretapping, a suit has been brought against the US government. And no not all Constitutions limit freedoms, you are incorrect. And certainly none of them permit the government to opt-out of basic freedoms, like your "notwithstanding clause"

Tman1 Tman1:

I believe there was a whole argument on whether he had the ability to pass that or not.

The argument hasn't ended.

Tman1 Tman1:

Didn't you know? This is Canada where dictators rule. In any case, what politicians believe to be the confines of the law differs than what normal people do. It happens all the time in Canada and elsewhere.

There is no need to be sarcastic, I'm interested in serious debate, if you can't hold a serious debate I'll consider you a troll and stop responding to your posts.

Tman1 Tman1:

That was neither an emotional nor nationalistic response and I honestly don't see how you construed it as one. Perhaps you should read the full sentence instead of cutting it off. Politicians in Canada do have a problem with ethics in this country or haven't you been following up on the current failures of Westminster structure of government up here?

Which politicians? All of them or are you being selective?

[danikyvor]

Those who want the Mexicans to come up and do the 'shit work' watch what you say. Chances are in a couple of years you'll be harping on why all the immigrants are taking all the jobs.

Oh wait...

[BartSimpson]

I don't mind the people who come here to be Americans. But the colonists who are coming here to make this part of Mexico are pissing me off.

[VitaminC]

All laws are limitations of freedom....

The law regarding Murder is a limitation on a citizens freedom to kill.

Absolute freedom is anarchy....certainly anarchists would advocate tossing out all limitations on freedom.

[Blue_Nose]

dimoreien dimoreien:

Those who want the Mexicans to come up and do the 'shit work' watch what you say. Chances are in a couple of years you'll be harping on why all the immigrants are taking all the jobs.

Oh wait...

I won't (since I coined 'shit jobs', I assume you're referring to me). They're "taking all the jobs" because they can do the work better than other people, and therefore, they deserve them. Someone else might claim someone born here deserves the job over an immigrant, but nobody deserves anything if they aren't prepared to work for it.... if someone who can't speak english and isn't accustomed to our society can walk in and 'steal' your job, it says something about how well you were doing it in the first place.

[BartSimpson]

The problems with illegal aliens are multiple.

First, they work "under the table" since they cannot provide the needed documentation to be employed legally (Driver's license, Social Security card, taxpayer ID). Therefore, they do NOT pay income or disability taxes like everyone else. They pay sales taxes and that's what their enablers keep citing when they say illegals pay 'taxes'.

Second: Because they work under the table the employers are not paying their corresponding employment taxes (social security co-pay, worker's compensation, etc.) and the government is then shorted these amounts while the employer profits.

Third: because it is much cheaper to hire illegals there are many traditional employers who hire them despite laws against doing so, such as Wal Mart. This makes illegals unfairly competitive against legal residents and citizens.

Fourth: since they're already illegal they are willing to work for less than the legal minimum wage. This makes them, again, unfairly competitive against legal residents and citizens and it has a further effect of guaranteeing that illegals usually remain impoverished as a hidden, third class of society.

[fatbasturd]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

dimoreien dimoreien:

Those who want the Mexicans to come up and do the 'shit work' watch what you say. Chances are in a couple of years you'll be harping on why all the immigrants are taking all the jobs.

Oh wait...

I won't (since I coined 'shit jobs', I assume you're referring to me). They're "taking all the jobs" because they can do the work better than other people, and therefore, they deserve them. Someone else might claim someone born here deserves the job over an immigrant, but nobody deserves anything if they aren't prepared to work for it.... if someone who can't speak english and isn't accustomed to our society can walk in and 'steal' your job, it says something about how well you were doing it in the first place.

Well said

[VitaminC]

fatbasturd fatbasturd:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

dimoreien dimoreien:

Those who want the Mexicans to come up and do the 'shit work' watch what you say. Chances are in a couple of years you'll be harping on why all the immigrants are taking all the jobs.

Oh wait...

I won't (since I coined 'shit jobs', I assume you're referring to me). They're "taking all the jobs" because they can do the work better than other people, and therefore, they deserve them. Someone else might claim someone born here deserves the job over an immigrant, but nobody deserves anything if they aren't prepared to work for it.... if someone who can't speak english and isn't accustomed to our society can walk in and 'steal' your job, it says something about how well you were doing it in the first place.

Well said

Damn lazy Canadians.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The problems with illegal aliens are multiple.

First, they work "under the table" since they cannot provide the needed documentation to be employed legally (Driver's license, Social Security card, taxpayer ID). Therefore, they do NOT pay income or disability taxes like everyone else. They pay sales taxes and that's what their enablers keep citing when they say illegals pay 'taxes'.

Second: Because they work under the table the employers are not paying their corresponding employment taxes (social security co-pay, worker's compensation, etc.) and the government is then shorted these amounts while the employer profits.

Third: because it is much cheaper to hire illegals there are many traditional employers who hire them despite laws against doing so, such as Wal Mart. This makes illegals unfairly competitive against legal residents and citizens.

Fourth: since they're already illegal they are willing to work for less than the legal minimum wage. This makes them, again, unfairly competitive against legal residents and citizens and it has a further effect of guaranteeing that illegals usually remain impoverished as a hidden, third class of society.

Right... the issues surround illegal employees is certainly a significant one, but that's the fault of the employers and labour regulators, not the immigrants. Simple solution is to crack down on illegal employment, and the problems with immigration, illegal or not, will solve themselves.

[Tman1]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

Like I said, all forms of government have flaws, no system is perfect, I just happen to hold an opinion that the Parliamentary system gives powers to the government without checks and balances. Would you agree or disagree?

Ok, and it's your freedom to hold that opinion like I do mine. To be honest, I like the American style of democracy because it gives more power to the government which creates a strong government body instead of here where you get constant squabbling among the provinces and like you said there is no perfect system which I never said at all.

$1:

The argument hasn't ended.

No but the concept of the government spying on you infringes on your freedoms doesn't it?

$1:

There is no need to be sarcastic, I'm interested in serious debate, if you can't hold a serious debate I'll consider you a troll and stop responding to your posts.

First of all, I wasn't being sarcastic but rather trying to reply in a light-hearted attempt at humour by poking fun at Canada's government and it's politicians. Second, why didn't you just respond to my comments instead of busy writing out having a serious debate? If you want to stop responding to my posts because you don't have a sense of humour or the inability to respond to my posts, go right ahead but don't rely on cheap shots by calling people trolls.

$1:

A bill isn't part of the constitution. A bill can pass the legislative branch and be questioned by the judicial branch. Such is the case with the wiretapping, a suit has been brought against the US government. And no not all Constitutions limit freedoms, you are incorrect. And certainly none of them permit the government to opt-out of basic freedoms, like your "notwithstanding clause"

Maybe not in the US constitution but for Canada's:

$1:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter is intended to protect certain political and civil rights of Canadians from the policies and actions of all levels of government, and to unify the people around a set of principles that embody those rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of ... d_freedoms

$1:

And no not all Constitutions limit freedoms, you are incorrect.

No I don't think I am incorrect. So far you are doing a poor job of convincing me otherwise. Exactly what Constitutions have no limits? People can do whatever they want? There are no laws? I'm sure there are a great many people interested in a Constitution that doesn't limit freedoms.

$1:

Which politicians? All of them or are you being selective?

Well, I was mainly referring to a top reason why an election was called was because Martin's Liberals were held accountable for ethics problems and the problem of Stephen Harper for his appointment of certain "questionable" candidates for MP's. It seems to be a never ending circle of questionable ethics that apparently run this country.