Quote:
Maggie offers this viewpoint
Your own shiny new constitution is so wonderful that there's still serious secessionist sentiment among about 40% of Quebecois, who still have their own courts and legal system, if my information is current. Even getting an authoritative version of the 1982 constitution in French was a big complicated deal.
|
Canada is a muticultural country, too, with its own regional subtleties and diversity. There's lots to discuss about the apparently subltle differences between Canadians in Toronto and Canadiens in Montreal beyond the rivalry between the Leafs and the Habs.
For example, we like our
New York Fries which were invented in Toronto, but the Quebecois stand by their
poutine.
The
Fathers of Confederation provided for such differences to co-exist and even encouraged regional diversity to continue in one nation. It is a challenge, to be sure, especially with two official languages, not just at the federal level but even at the provincial level of government as it is here in
Ontario.
Some things are a big complicated deal, but finding an authoritative version of the 1982 Constitution of Canada in french is as easy as entering
constitution canada french in google.
Allowing for meaningful diversity, Quebec retains its civil law code, but all Canadians are subject to one
Criminal Code and the right to trial in either official language regardless of the province in which the crime charged was committed. As is candidly admitted, the Criminal Code for Canada is overdue for amendment but thankfully there are not 10, or 50, such codes crying for law reform, as in some other countries.
There are many elements of federalism in both the USA and Canada that have merit. State to state jurisdiction over criminal law in the USA just doesn't happen to be one of them, in my opinion and I may not be alone on that among jurists and constitutional experts.
Even amendments that might seem reasonable to the wisest in our countries might never happen because our governments are politically motivated. Political motivations at the time of the original draft of the US Constitution account for the separation of powers that made sense to the framers at the time but are difficult to defend in a modern world where the individual states are not so isolated from each other and their citizenry more cosmopolitan.
With traditions of freedom of speech it is fair and even desirable for continuous thoughtful debate. Such debate is not everyone's cup of tea, as they say in the country from which both the USA and Canada derive their respective legal systems.
Maggie, you have every right to be patriotic or idiotarian or whatever you choose. It's unfortunate if intellectual critique of the United States Constitution with you is only possible when you're discussing it with another American.
I imagine that across the USA and the world there are constitutional lawyers who can engage in discussion of this topic without taking offense or deriding another's viewpoint or opinion, or qualification to engage in such discussion on the basis of nationality. I had hoped that our discussion here in the Cellar might ascend to that level before it ass ends to this ... go fist yourself.
I'm not here to argue but to add value to rational discussion and to amuse those who have a sense of humor. I trust that I've satisfied y'all on both accounts.
