I have heard people assert in all seriousness that Quebec has a veto on all constitutional amendments, which is what I was responding to. Their consent may be needed as a political matter, but not under the letter of the amending formula.
Historical fact: René Lévesque agreed to the draft amending formula prepared by the premiers that did not include a veto for Quebec. He thought the right to opt out of constitutional amendments was a better way to bolster Quebec’s sovereignty.
Then was outraged when the Constitution was patriated witout Quebec’s consent and the Supreme Court said “No backsies!”
It was a very fluid situation. Pierre Trudeau took the view that there was no point in trying to get Levesque’s consent to the patriation plan, because as a sovereigntist, Lévesque would not agree to anything that would make the federation stronger.
I think another big difference is that unlike many nations (not all) the US was originally formed from thirteen semi-sovereign states after the armed revolution.
The Constitution was not only a way to lay out the structure of government, it was the document that describes what powers were to be voluntarily given to the new Federal government, and which were retained by the States. And in the Bill of Rights, it restricts the power of the new government (and the states) as to what they could and couldn’t do with respect to the People.
So it’s a little more than just a dusty blueprint for government that was drawn up in the wake of a peaceful independence by an existing nation. Rather it’s the foundational document that defines the nation in ways that other countries’ constitutions don’t do.
That’s an excellent summary of the significance of the German Grundgesetz. I just want to add one point:
Some people at the time and current historians consider it a missed opportunity that the Grundgesetz didn’t get an overhaul at reunification in 1990. Remove some minor flaws, modernize it and most of all, acknowledge good aspects of the constitutional, political and social practices of the former GDR and include them. But that was not a popular position in the zeitgeist of the Wende, so we kept the constitution from 1949 intact. It’s a good constitution, no doubt, but it could be better and more adapt to modern times.
And Madison was against the Bill of Rights because he believed that they were so fucking obvious that they never needed to be written down. It was an insult to the drafters and to the notion of inalienable rights that they were needed. Hardly an oversight as someone above said.
The Constitution was as much a poke in the eye of King George as the Declaration of Independence. That’s why even its enemies quickly deified the words to obviate the need for a sitting king.
This is not quite right. The Bill of Rights, as originally drafted, begins, “Congress shall pass no law…” After the civil war amendments, SCOTUS started applying the Bill of Rights to the states, although there is nothing in those amendments or anywhere else that requires that. This has now been interpreted, for example, to conclude that NY State cannot have a law restricting gun ownership. But also they cannot restrict free speech.
One big difference between the US and Canada is that congress has unlimited power over interstate commerce. Parliament does not and there are all sorts of interprovincial trade barriers.
Sure, but in the beginning it was basically for the people, not the states.
It is however a natural outgrowth to apply it to states as well, if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So is incorporation, which is using the Due Process clause to protect the people from BoR violations within state law.
Granted, as I know from talking with a judge who was involved in writing it, the authors studied a number of constitutions - including the USA - and unwritten law as in the case of the UK.
But ours is argueably on par, or even better in respect to rights than your 1789 document, including the amendments.
(Unless I am mistaking your word “defines” to mean blind obsequience to the country)
Exactly. Canada, Australia, India, the new South Africa; they didn’t exist before their constitutions. They are defined by their constitutions. There’s nothing special about the US Constitution in defining the US.
Speaking as an American who has been living overseas for a while and has spent all that time, up to the present, having my eyes repeatedly opened, I highly recommend to my fellow citizens that extended travel outside the States can an excellent curative against making hilariously overbroad pronouncements about other countries’ history and politics.
It’s the portion that directly recognizes individual rights of every Canadian. That speaks to individuals in a way that the division of powers doesn’t.
I agree, and this holds true not just for citizens of the USA. It just seems odd that a country that is fairly wealthy has so few passport holders, i.e. not many people interested in international travel.
“Reverence” for the US Constitution is primarily limited to the first two amendments - the First Amendment codified the “Five Freedoms” which (to varying degrees) have been included in various constitutions throughout the world: freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition. It is not a case of “American exceptionalism” to point out that the guarantee of these rights was unique at the time the Constitution was written (not to mention that the Constitution itself was unique at the time it was written).
Reverence for the (IMHO poorly written) Second Amendment is a much more recent phenomenon, primarily driven by the firearms industry through their chief marketing/lobbying arm the NRA. An extreme case of spin doctoring.
