Do you want to know what's really pathetic? Understand, Canada's Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms is apparently a popular model for other countries when they write their constitutions. This is because it contains many positive freedoms.
The United States Constitution, on the other hand, does not include much in the way of positive freedoms (besides a right to bear arms maybe). It's very hard for the government to do things for it's people. That's what the "system of checks and balances" is all about after all. Because the writers of the U.S. Constitution, suspicious of state power (and the rule of the democratic "mob") wanted to prevent their government from do anything TO them.
But here's the tragedy: While the U.S. Constitution has been very effective at barring effective state action for the building of social programs, progressive labour laws, voters' rights, and etc., ... it has served very little in recent years to prevent the U.S. government from spying on Americans, jailing them without charges, torturing them or murdering them. And much of this has been cemented, or even initiated by Harvard Constitutional scholar, current U.S. President, Barack Obama. The poor baby has had ever so much difficulty taking on private healthcare and Wall Street [sarcasm], but he's been passionately committed to seeing that the constitutional protections of ordinary U.S. Americans' civil, legal and political rights are completely eviscerated.
Canada's tragedy is that our parliamentary traditions and our elections' integrity and respect for our citizenship rights have been spat upon with distressing regularity by the harpercons with very little in the way of a punitive response.
The United States Constitution, on the other hand, does not include much in the way of positive freedoms (besides a right to bear arms maybe). It's very hard for the government to do things for it's people. That's what the "system of checks and balances" is all about after all. Because the writers of the U.S. Constitution, suspicious of state power (and the rule of the democratic "mob") wanted to prevent their government from do anything TO them.
But here's the tragedy: While the U.S. Constitution has been very effective at barring effective state action for the building of social programs, progressive labour laws, voters' rights, and etc., ... it has served very little in recent years to prevent the U.S. government from spying on Americans, jailing them without charges, torturing them or murdering them. And much of this has been cemented, or even initiated by Harvard Constitutional scholar, current U.S. President, Barack Obama. The poor baby has had ever so much difficulty taking on private healthcare and Wall Street [sarcasm], but he's been passionately committed to seeing that the constitutional protections of ordinary U.S. Americans' civil, legal and political rights are completely eviscerated.
Canada's tragedy is that our parliamentary traditions and our elections' integrity and respect for our citizenship rights have been spat upon with distressing regularity by the harpercons with very little in the way of a punitive response.
15 comments:
Never have I read something so stupid and sloppy in my entire life.
First of all, government must be restrained with only powers to protect the people. At the same time, nowhere in the US constitution does it prevent government from establishing anything that is necessary for the public good like public healthcare.
Unlike ours, which is an imported dead letter, the US constitution happens to be created from scratch. The United States by intent and design is a secular country. The only folks who said it wasn't are those who want to establish a theocracy. We have no such protections in our "constitution," a document that not only wasn't written by Canadians but cannot be changed.
Finally, the same constitution you complain against, because you share that inexplicable contempt have for the US that has been inherited from our British masters, is the very one progressives in the US are fighting tooth and nail to not just preserve but also restore.
I must also point out that unlike our imported dead letter, the US constitution was designed as a living document, to change when the times deem it necessary. Things like abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, and other good things were added to the Constitution over time, but not without serious efforts made by those who strove hard for such ideals. Ours wasn't even signed by Quebec.
Canadian Patriot,
Well, isn't this interesting.
"Never have I read something so stupid and sloppy in my entire life."
I assume that's hyperbole. I'll see if I can't identify the source of your ire ...
"First of all, government must be restrained with only powers to protect the people."
So governments can't possibly have the power to ensure that all citizens are treated equally and enjoy the same benefits of citizenship? It appears that a lot of people disagree with you.
"At the same time, nowhere in the US constitution does it prevent government from establishing anything that is necessary for the public good like public healthcare."
Well, the U.S. Constitution has certain hoops that the U.S. federal government has to jump through to justify federal regulation over aspects of the economy. But I also mentioned the "checks and balances" of the various branches of government that can be used to block the initiatives of the legislative or the executive branches. This should be common knowledge and I'm not going to spell it out for you.
"Unlike ours, which is an imported dead letter,"
You know, for someone who calls his or herself "Canadian Patriot" you don't appear to have very much respect for Canada's political heritage.
That's all fine by the way. You obviously don't have to love Trudeau's constitution. But you don't seem much enamoured of our British political heritage either. And that's your right. There's much about the U.S. Constitution to admire. I'm just referring to the disconnect between "Canadian Patriot" and your evident wish that the United States had conquered British North America back in the day.
"... the US constitution happens to be created from scratch."
Well, not entirely, but close enough.
"The United States by intent and design is a secular country. The only folks who said it wasn't are those who want to establish a theocracy."
That's nice. I didn't say anything about that, but thanks anyway.
"We have no such protections in our "constitution,""
I have no idea what you're talking about.
"a document that not only wasn't written by Canadians"
I see. So Pierre Elliot Trudeau was born in Kenya was he?
"but cannot be changed."
Did you ever hear of the topic of same-sex marriages? It was in all the papers.
"Finally, the same constitution you complain against, because you share that inexplicable contempt have for the US that has been inherited from our British masters,"
Stop ranting you imbecile.
"... is the very one progressives in the US are fighting tooth and nail to not just preserve but also restore."
Wow. If I could tell how your babbling is at all connected to the ideas expressed in my post, I'd give that some sort of response. But you obviously haven't read a goddamned thing. Nor do you appear to understand the very topic you presume to lecture me on.
"I must also point out that unlike our imported dead letter, the US constitution was designed as a living document, to change when the times deem it necessary."
There are many influential U.S. Conservatives who disagree strongly with you. You appear to be an incoherent "libertarian" of some sort who hasn't seen fit to address the central point of my post, which is that the U.S. Constitution's greater protections of individual liberties has been raped by a splintery broom handle. So that while the U.S. Americans don't get the equal enjoyment of citizenship's benefits, they also fail to get those liberal freedoms to be left alone.
If I wasn't convinced that you're a hopeless dullard I'd try to point out that we might be on the same side on this one. But you're a hopeless dullard and I don't care what you think.
"Things like abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, and other good things were added to the Constitution over time, but not without serious efforts made by those who strove hard for such ideals."
Well, I don't know how to respond to you. It might only earn your towering contempt, but Canada didn't have slavery in 1982. Women already had the vote. The former was achieved in the British Empire earlier than it was in the USA while the latter probably had just as much inspiration from both British and US American feminist movements.
The fact that the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were already accomplished facts by the time our Constitution was written isn't really any cause to despise it.
"Ours wasn't even signed by Quebec."
Yours is truly a dizzying intellect.
"Things like abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, and other good things were added to the Constitution over time, but not without serious efforts made by those who strove hard for such ideals."
Well, I don't know how to respond to you. It might only earn your towering contempt, but Canada didn't have slavery in 1982. Women already had the vote. The former was achieved in the British Empire earlier than it was in the USA while the latter probably had just as much inspiration from both British and US American feminist movements.
The fact that the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were already accomplished facts by the time our Constitution was written isn't really any cause to despise it.
"Ours wasn't even signed by Quebec."
Yours is truly a dizzying intellect.
Fine long-winded rhetoric from someone like yourself who's an illiterate unrepentant defender of imperialism.
May I also remind you that Canada didn't exist in 1812. Confederation didn't happen until 1867. Thus your reference to the War of 1812 is irrelevant. The federal government of this dominion promoting the bicentennial is just as guilty as promoting and propagating misinformation and spreading ignorance.
Canadian Something or Other,
Uh, I didn't mention the War of 1812. You're hallucinating. I don't see where I was a defender of imperialism.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
"... your evident wish that the United States had conquered British North America back in the day."
Nice try, liar.
Uh, they also invaded during the Revolution. It was a general statement. It wasn't a celebration of the War of 1812.
You're babbling.
Or maybe you're trying to cover your ass with excuses.
You're the one babbling about something you didn't even read or compair at all.
You also think that checks and balances are a bad thing. The erosion of civil liberties is caused by the erosion of those checks and balances.
But anyways, despite your obviously illiteracy, your views are your views, however stupid they are.
America's constitution is just the constitution of another country. Like you, I'm ignorant of how things work down there, and I don't want to pretend I do.
You're crazy.
I said it sounds like you would have preferred it if the USA had conquered British North America back in the day. The Americans invaded Canada twice, during the American Revolution and during the War of 1812. I never mentioned the War of 1812 specifically. And it doesn't matter.
The point is that you sound as if you reject our British heritage and greatly admire the USA's political traditions. Which is your right, as I already said.
I did not say that checks and balances were a bad thing.
I notice you've since typed the following comment:
"But anyways, despite your obviously illiteracy, your views are your views, however stupid they are.
America's constitution is just the constitution of another country. Like you, I'm ignorant of how things work down there, and I don't want to pretend I do."
Indeed. Let's wrap this up. You've missed my point entirely. I don't mind a little bit of internet flaming and insults, but not from a complete moron who can't follow an incredibly simple argument.
"I said it sounds like you would have preferred it if the USA had conquered British North America back in the day. The Americans invaded Canada twice, during the American Revolution and during the War of 1812. I never mentioned the War of 1812 specifically. And it doesn't matter."
And that's a hock of shit. Also, yet again, Canada didn't even exist in either 1812 or the American Revolution.
Notice how I called it "British North America"?
And, anyway, while i know you're referring to the "Canada" of 1867 when you say that "Canada" didn't exist during the American Revolution or the War of 1812, the name "Canada" had long been in use to describe at least part of New France, and, by the War of 1812, the territory had been divided into Upper and Lower Canada.
Post a Comment