Canadians ashamed of our constitution?

[ironsides]

Indeed, ratified by representatives who represented rich white people. At the time there was still slavery, which had a big chunk of the population, women couldnt vote, freed blacks couldnt vote etc. So it was ratified by a small minority of the people living there.

As for our constitution: Constitutional Documents There it is.

Popular vote (Rich ot those who could get to polling place). There were no great populations in those days, so for example 30 people voted Yes for Delaware. The poor farmer as usual could care less, just wanted protection from someone.

U.S. Constitution


1 December, 7, 1787 Delaware 30-0
2 December, 11,1787 Pennsylvania 46-23
3 December 18, 1787 New Jersey 38-0
4 January 2, 1788 Georgia 26-0
5 January 9, 1788 Connecticut 128-40
6. February 6, 1788 Massachusetts 187-168
7. April 26, 1788 Maryland 63-11
8 May 23, 1788 South Carolina 149-73
9. June 21,1788 New Hampshire 57-47
10. June 25, 1788 Virginia 89-79
11. June 26, 1788 New York 30-27
12. November 1, 1788 North Carolina 194-77
13. May 29, 1790 Rhode Island 34-32​

 

[gerryh]

Don't bother wldB, medic doesn't have a clue anout Canada and machjo can't see past his bigotry.

 

[gopher]

New Canadian National Anthem:

YouTube - ‪Canadian, Please‬‏

 

[Bar Sinister]

Bar sisinster, the Constitution of the United States of America WAS ratified by the representatives of the people, elected by the people, in the respective State legislatures. It took effect only when 3/4 of the States had ratified it, and only APPLIED TO THOSE STATES THAT had RATIFIED it. Eventually, all of the original states did ratify the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and as each successive Amendment has come up, the required number of States have ratified them too.

Canada in fact does NOT have a Constitution, per se, at least not a written one. It was never ratified by the requisite Provinces, so it never actually took effect. We have elements of a constitution, but not a complete whole.

Just as Great Britain does not have a written Constitution. In actual fact, the oldest WRITTEN Constitution in the world is the one of the USA.

Read my post again. I clearly stated that there was no general vote. And you are wrong about Canada not having a constitution. The BNA Act was renamed the Constitution Act in 1982 and is clearly Canada's constitution. And it you don't think it is written I refer you to this link. The Constitution Act, 1982

 

[Machjo]

Don't bother wldB, medic doesn't have a clue anout Canada and machjo can't see past his bigotry.

So it's bigoted to want to grant the monarch the freedom to adopt the Catholic Faith should he so wish, and to marry a catholic?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

And it's bigoted to want all religions to be treated equally?

You sure as hell have a warped idea of bigotry there, buddy.

 

[captain morgan]

"
Depends on the parent. I was in that school system til grade 8. My parents know nothing of politics and have never voted. I told my mother last year that I had met Jean Chretien, she said "Who is he?"

It should be all or nothing. Fund all religious schools, or none. That would ensure equality on this question.

I don't think that this would really be an issue for most people. Also, I believe that it could easily be done by allowing the parents to determine the allocation of the monies.. If there are enough people in a community that support a school (and assuming that the school lives up to the standards set by the province) then it should not be a problem to have that representation.

On that note, there also has to be a form of recognition that the province does not have to build schools for each and every interest group - there has to be enough support in the community (via taxes) to justify the development of that school.

When did I ever say that? I'd have no issue for example with a voucher programme with any schoool, denominational or not, Catholic or not, being allowed to participate.

Machjo,

When you single-out one specific interest group in the equation and simultaneously elect not to apply those same expectations to the other 'systems', to me, that indicates that there is a bias of sorts.

 

[The Old Medic]

Indeed, Canada has SOME elements of a Constitution. I freely admitted that. It does not have a coherent Constitution though, as much of it is implied, rather than reduced to paper.

I would, by the way, point out that in Canada no Catholic could hold office in any Province other than Quebec until the 1870's (also true in Canada's parent country, Great Britain), women were denied the vote (also true in Great Britain), Canada ALSO had slavery at the time that the US Constitution was written and slaves were not allowed to vote in Canada either (or Great Britain), ONLY land owners were allowed the franchise in Canada (and in most of Great Britain).

In fact, all of the provisions that you choose to rail against were imported from Great Britain, the country that ALL Canadians held citizenship in until January 1, 1947 when Canadian citizenship was first established (and the date when I became a Canadian citizen as well).

No country is sovereign, if it has no citizenship. Canada had no citizenship until 1947, so it was not a truly independent and sovereign nation until that year.

So, in reality, any document that was written prior to 1947 is meaningless as a "Constitutional Document", because it did not apply to a country that was actually sovereign.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo,

When you single-out one specific interest group in the equation and simultaneously elect not to apply those same expectations to the other 'systems', to me, that indicates that there is a bias of sorts.

Well what do you want me to do? Criticise government funding of Muslim schools to the exclusion of othre religious schools, when that's not the case? Am i to just make it up as I go along? It says clearly in the BNA Act that minority catholic and Protestant communities have this special privilege. Not Jews, not Buddhists, not Hindus, not Muslims. So, what am i to say? It's not my fault the privileged group happens to be Catholic.

Also, if I were so anti-Catholic, why would i have equally argued in the OP that the Monarch ought to be allowed to adopt the Faith of his choosing, and not be forced to adopt the Anghican Faith. This proposal would allow him to become Catholic too. Whadda ya know.

And it states explicitly in the Bill of Rights 1689 that the monarch must be a member of the Church of England and cannot be married to a Catholic. If I'm so anti-catholic, how is it that in the OP I'd also referred to that issue too?

By the way, both the Green Party of Ontario and the Progressive Party of Ontario would have been with me on this last election, with the Greens saying funding for none, and the PC saying funding for all religions. I lean more towards the PC position in principle, but could also accept the Green one as still being equal at least.

What i don't get is how people can actually defend this sepcial privilege, regardless of what religion happens to be given the privilege.

 

[CDNBear]

Indeed, Canada has SOME elements of a Constitution. I freely admitted that. It does not have a coherent Constitution though, as much of it is implied, rather than reduced to paper.

You really should stick to topics you actually know something about. As to what topics those maybe. I'm not sure, you've expressed a serious lack of knowledge on so many topics here, I'm not actually sure one exists...

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index....ada&sub=constitution&doc=constitution-eng.htm

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001868

Do you ever get tired of looking foolish Old Medic?

 

[The Old Medic]

gerryH, I know a HELL of a lot more about Canada than you might think. My family has lived there since humans have been in North America. My EUROPEAN based ancestors came to Canada as early as 1764, and no branch of the family arrived in Canada after 1804.

I have family buried in every Province that borders the United States, I have family that has served in Parliament, family members that have been Knighted by the King or Queen of the time; family members that died defending Canada in various wars; family members that died fighting fires in Winnipeg, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Machjo]

Indeed, Canada has SOME elements of a Constitution. I freely admitted that. It does not have a coherent Constitution though, as much of it is implied, rather than reduced to paper.

I would, by the way, point out that in Canada no Catholic could hold office in any Province other than Quebec until the 1870's (also true in Canada's parent country, Great Britain), women were denied the vote (also true in Great Britain), Canada ALSO had slavery at the time that the US Constitution was written and slaves were not allowed to vote in Canada either (or Great Britain), ONLY land owners were allowed the franchise in Canada (and in most of Great Britain).

In fact, all of the provisions that you choose to rail against were imported from Great Britain, the country that ALL Canadians held citizenship in until January 1, 1947 when Canadian citizenship was first established (and the date when I became a Canadian citizen as well).

No country is sovereign, if it has no citizenship. Canada had no citizenship until 1947, so it was not a truly independent and sovereign nation until that year.

So, in reality, any document that was written prior to 1947 is meaningless as a "Constitutional Document", because it did not apply to a country that was actually sovereign.

Wrong, the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1687 requiring the Queen to be a member of the Church of England and prohibiting her from marrying a Catholic are still in force today.

 

[CDNBear]

gerryH, I know a HELL of a lot more about Canada than you might think.

But far less than we know.

My family has lived there since humans have been in North America. My EUROPEAN based ancestors came to Canada as early as 1764, and no branch of the family arrived in Canada after 1804.

I have family buried in every Province that borders the United States, I have family that has served in Parliament, family members that have been Knighted by the King or Queen of the time; family members that died defending Canada in various wars; family members that died fighting fires in Winnipeg, etc., etc., etc.

That means nothing.

I, actually you rather, have exposed your lack of knowledge in Canadian and aboriginal history, time and time again.

 

[The Old Medic]

Canada has some documents CDN Bear, that make up SOME elements of a Constitution.

Is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a part of the Constitution? If it is, why is it not labeled as such?

And MACHO, there is absolutely no connection between the Monarch not being allowed to marry a Catholic, and the fact that until the 1870's no Catholic could hold ANY public office in Canada.

I just love the way that some of you like to twist, obfuscate and generally blow smoke in your efforts to "bring me down".

 

[CDNBear]

Canada has some documents CDN Bear, that make up SOME elements of a Constitution.

Is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a part of the Constitution? If it is, why is it not labeled as such?

A Constitution is the system of laws and conventions by which a state governs itself; the basic law of a country; the law of laws.

What exactly is the Charter, if not the law of laws, the system of laws and conventions, by which Canada governs itself?

Read on...

I just love the way that some of you like to twist, obfuscate and generally blow smoke in your efforts to "bring me down".

Coming from the clown that just tried to obfuscate and generally blow smoke on the semantics of what a constitution is.

 

[Tonington]

gerryH, I know a HELL of a lot more about Canada than you might think. My family has lived there since humans have been in North America. My EUROPEAN based ancestors came to Canada as early as 1764, and no branch of the family arrived in Canada after 1804.

That doesn't mean you actually know anything...the content you post shows that you are grossly misinformed about Canada's laws, and Canadian society in general.

 

[gerryh]

gerryH, I know a HELL of a lot more about Canada than you might think. My family has lived there since humans have been in North America. My EUROPEAN based ancestors came to Canada as early as 1764, and no branch of the family arrived in Canada after 1804.

YOU know sweet piss all about Canada, and if you want to have a "my dick is bigger than your dick" match.....you lose.


My family also has been here from the beginning, and my "european" side has been here since [FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]September 22, 1653.[/FONT]

 

[CDNBear]

YOU know sweet piss all about Canada, and if you want to have a "my dick is bigger than your dick" match.....you lose.


My family also has been here from the beginning, and my "european" side has been here since September 22, 1653.

Yep, your pee pee is bigger!

 

[FiveParadox]

This is a ridiculous conversation.

Canada very much does have a constitution.

Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, lists the documents that are entrenched in our constitution:

• Constitution Act, 1867
• Manitoba Act, 1870
• Rubert's Land and Northwestern Territory Order
• British Columbia Terms of Union
• Constitution Act, 1871
• Price Edward Island Terms of Union
• Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
• Adjacent Territories Order
• Constitution Act, 1886
• Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
• Alberta Act
• Saskatchewan Act
• Constitution Act, 1907
• Constitution Act, 1915
• Constitution Act, 1930
• Statute of Westminster, 1931
• Constitution Act, 1940
• Newfoundland Act
• Constitution Act, 1960
• Constitution Act, 1964
• Constitution Act, 1965
• Constitution Act, 1974
• Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
• Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

Also, because of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the following laws are also part of the Canadian constitution. The sections that relate to our constitutional monarchy in the following laws are interpreted exactly as they are read; the sections that relate to constitutional order and civil rights are considered in a "foundational" context by the courts.

• English Bill of Rights, 1689
• Act of Settlement, 1701
• Proclamation of 1763 (by reference in another Act)

And to respond to the above suggestion that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a part of our constitutional texts because it doesn't say "CONSTITUTION" stamped on its forehead is nonsense. The Charter is sections 1-34 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Looks like a constitution to me.

 

[gerryh]

This is a ridiculous conversation.

Canada very much does have a constitution.

Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, lists the documents that are entrenched in our constitution:

• Constitution Act, 1867
• Manitoba Act, 1870
• Rubert's Land and Northwestern Territory Order
• British Columbia Terms of Union
• Constitution Act, 1871
• Price Edward Island Terms of Union
• Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
• Adjacent Territories Order
• Constitution Act, 1886
• Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
• Alberta Act
• Saskatchewan Act
• Constitution Act, 1907
• Constitution Act, 1915
• Constitution Act, 1930
• Statute of Westminster, 1931
• Constitution Act, 1940
• Newfoundland Act
• Constitution Act, 1960
• Constitution Act, 1964
• Constitution Act, 1965
• Constitution Act, 1974
• Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
• Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

Also, because of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the following laws are also part of the Canadian constitution. The sections that relate to our constitutional monarchy in the following laws are interpreted exactly as they are read; the sections that relate to constitutional order and civil rights are considered in a "foundational" context by the courts.

• English Bill of Rights, 1689
• Act of Settlement, 1701
• Proclamation of 1763 (by reference in another Act)

And to respond to the above suggestion that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a part of our constitutional texts because it doesn't say "CONSTITUTION" stamped on its forehead is nonsense. The Charter is sections 1-34 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Looks like a constitution to me.

bout fu ckin time you got here. jeez.

 

[CDNBear]

This is a ridiculous conversation.

Brought to you by a ridiculous poster.

Looks like a constitution to me.

That's because you are smart, not just merely trying to look smart.

bout fu ckin time you got here. jeez.

I love your eloquent way with words!