Liberalism and the US Constitution

Great Debates
1

I’m not an expert on anything profound, but it recently occured to me that the genesis of progressive liberal and humanistic ideas occur in the US, get adopted by other western countries, particularly Canada, are resolved , yet the debate in the US is never ending.

For example, we in Canada never really debated for any length of time on the subject of same sex marriage. But for a long time I’ve heard of the push from Americans. All of a sudden we have same sex marriage and I hardly hear of a peep on the street or in the media towards objection. The issue is resolved. America is still way behind and arguing.

Take abortion. I remember back in the seventies, following Roe vs Wade Dr. Morgentaler setting up abortion clinics across Canada with a lot of opposing sentiment. The abortion issue here is now completely dead. For decades. No one talks about it around here, we just accept it. Judging about what I hear, a lot of Americans are still voicing threats to overturn it.

I could go on with other issues like the environment, fast food, racism solutions, war in Iraq and Afghanistan , decriminalization of marijuana etc. but the point I’m making is that Canada and I think most other western countries are quick to resolve issues that arise primarily from American activism.

Why?

I think its all because of the US constitution. This glorious document which no other country can copy today with the specitivity and modern ambiguity relying on the subjective judiciary to interpret allows for activism and resentment. Americans are fixated on their civil bible and just as in all the differences associated with interpretation of the religious bible, resolution becomes impossible.

Am I out in left field? There is so much animosity among Americans on this board and in the American media. America has given all of us a lot towards a humanistic society, but I feel way more secure in Canada than I would in the States. We don’t have a civil bible and thus can accept a reasonable consensus.

Trust me, us Canadians might not have a constitution of the power that you Americans have, but we do feel quite secure.

Comments?

2

The United States is a more socially conservative country. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Lots of democracies are far MORE socially conservative than the USA; there are countries where the idea of gay marriage isn’t even being debated at all.

As to the notion that we’re quicker to resolve issues, that’s just comically wrong. We have DIFFERENT issues. Canada has been struggling with the French-English divide and separatism since long, long before you were born. We have an entire racial underclass who’re treated differently under and by the law, many of whom are made to live in encampments miles and miles from anyone else. Our country’s structured in a way that some of its provinces are permanent welfare queens living off the others. And if you don’t think there isn’t vcommon racism here, you’ve never been a black kid driving a nice car in Mississauga. We have LOTS of issues with no obvious solutions.

I can’t see the OP as anything more than a little superiority complex writ into post form. Canada has plenty of problems for which we’ve been unable to generate solutions.

3

I think Canadians have every right to be proud of members of a socially conscious society. That said, we of course continue to have problems that need resolution. But they are being worked on, and opinion polls show that the majority of Canadians support social justice so there is reason to be optimisitic that they, too, will be resolved satisfactorily as time goes on.

4

That is a misrepresentation, for no one is made to live anywhere. Indians who live on reservations miles and miles from anyone else are there because they choose to be, and these communities are where they are because they always have been there, on traditional lands.

Historically, you can find communities that have been moved without the consent of the local people, and historically you can find economic restrictions against reserves to prevent competition. That is not the case today.

Indians from one reserve can transfer to another reserve if they chose and if the other reserve accepts them.

Indians from a reserve can relocate off reserve any time they like, and still receive medical benefits and sale tax exemptions. Regardless of whether an Indian lives on or off reserve, debts located off reserve can be collected, and income earned off reserve is taxed.

The fundamental problem is that small remote communities have no significant economic base, which forces the people living there to subsist in poverty or to move south to greener pastures, but having grown up in such communities, they are utterly unprepared to integrate into southern life, and often remain in poverty even after moving to urban areas. At the same time, the exodus of the brightest and best from these communities is devestating to the communities. What is left is tragedy.

A secondary problem is that it will continue to be very difficult for Indians living on reserves to get credit as long as the Indian Act protects Indians living on reserves from debt collection. Without credit, business development must rely on government funding, which peretuates a handout mindset.

5

The Constitution doesn’t cause these issues, it’s a tool that is used to support one position or a another. A vast majority of people in America make up their mind on these issues, and then use the Constitution to support them one way or another.

6

Nothing you’ve said Rickjay I would disagree with in general except for that superiority complex thing.

But lets consider the French- English divide. We’ve gone through a couple of hairy referendums provided by a particular provincial government that have both suggested extreme polarization yet it is obvious today that unless some charismatic figure can put separation over the top it ain’t going to happen. Most of us don’t talk about it anymore. The issue does not come up very often, at least where I am.

Lets look at our present government. Its basically socially conservative isn’t it? Do you see that gay marriage is in jeapardy?

Laugh all you want. My simplist response would be based on the duration of the last election campaign and how we are patiently biding our time with the present government.

Well I was just refering to the “western” countries, but where there is no debate at all, there is resolution. I.e. no problem.

And how much attention does that get? I’m very very sympathetic to their plight contrary to many other Canadians, but our government doesn’t really get challenged at all, either way,period, on that issue. I might add it isn’t an American issue either.

Well if you’re a black kid in my parts here in British Columbia, you’ll probably get a better ride than a Vietnamese or a Sikh. No question, we’ve got racists too. I just had to listen to an accomplished man at a party last night blaming school shootings on Orientals. But we had a recently retired cop and a school administrator and myself and others patiently, without recrimination rebut his attitude. He admitted he was shooting from the hip. That is resolution. Resolution of that kind is not obvious by this American dominated message board that is dedicated (and I really believe that) to stamping out ignorance.

I’ve digressed. All I’m trying to say is that I have such a high degree of respect for America, but I think their institutions, particularly their vaunted constitution which we all benefit from also works against them.

7

I’d put it down to a more live and let live attitude, combined with activist courts interpreting our Constitution’s relatively new (happy 25th!) Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The live and let live comes out through the daily interaction between so many different cultures in Canada. One gets used to different cultures doing things differently. Instead of “It’s different – let’s shoot it,” it becomes “It’s different, but it’s not shooting me.” This is something particularly well established in both the USA and Canada, for both are nations founded on immigrants.

The USA’s constitution is as old as the nation itself, and although it has been occasionally amended, it is pretty much monolithic. It think that the term “civic bible” is a fair one. Canada’s constitution, however, has been evolving and continues to evolve. What's the Deal with Canada's Queen
Twenty-five years ago, our constitution was expanded to include Part I, Schedule B to the Canada Act ( U.K., 1982) as incorporated in the Constitution Act (Can. 1982). In short, we gained a bouncing baby Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Front and centre in this was protection of minority rights, including cultural, gender and religious minorities.

With the new Charter in hand, the courts took to upholding and interpreting it. Thus when the government’s law on abortion was challenged on the grounds of it unduely impinging on the rights of women to security of the person, the courts struck it down. The governments since then have dodged the issue by not putting a new law in place.

Similarly, when various laws discriminatory against gays were challenged as being contrary to the gender freedoms in the consitution, the courts extended these to include gays, and repeately struck down the laws. The courts did not want to play the role of legislators, so their ultimate ruling tossed the hot potato back to Parliament, where the Liberals passed a gay marriage law, and then more recently, the Conservatives made a token show of putting an anti-gay mariage law to the vote, but of course it failed, given the knowledge that had it passed, it would have been struck down by the courts.

Something that has come through loud and clear, is that when interpreting our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada has tried to put justice first over literal readings. That has led to an activist court. I expect that in turn has led to the provincial and federal parliaments taking greater care to not pass laws unduely restrict the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In short, here in Canada we have better tools for the job than in the USA, thanks to the rights portion of our constitution being so much more current, and therefore much more in tune with the needs and concerns of our highly varried society.

8

Found it! If you can get your hands on it, have a boo at Morgentaler v. Borowski: Abortion, the Charter, and the Courts, F.L. Morton, 1992, McLelland & Steward Inc., ISBN 0-7710-6513-2. It sets out how the Charter and the Supreme Court of Canada changed the way politics work in Canada. Both Morgentaler and Borowiski praised the book – it is one heck of a read, and does not take any position on abortion.

9

That makes no sense. The problem here is that we can’t reach a consensus, and sometimes that “civil bible” is the only thing keeping the rights of citizens from being overrun by a consensus of clueless people.

10

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Section 1 of our Charter sets out that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to only such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That builds a lot of compomise into the system. What are reasonable limits? What is demonstrably justified?

By comparison, the USA’s Bill of Rights is a lot more black and white, with reasonableness only entering into certain areas rather than being front and centre. A good example is the first amendment, which is profoundly protected in the USA, wereas in Canada we have constitutionally protected freedom of expression that in turn is subject to the reasonable limits of section 1 of our Charter. Thus in the USA, people tend to use their constitution as a great authority on rights, whereas in Canada there we tend to use our constitution to try to figure out what our various rights should be, and then find a balance between conflicting rights. Getting back to your first amendment, this means that you can not have laws prohibiting the promotion of hatred against minorites to the same degree that we have in Canada – no Fred Phelps for us.

In short, the US Consitution is a civic bible, while the Canadian Constitution is a civic road map.

11

When you put it that way, and with those examples, it makes the U.S. Constitution seem much better.

12

I don’t think it’s a constitutional issue. I think it may be a population issue. The United States is the only western democracy with a very large and demographically diverse population. So even a small fringe (say one percent of the population) has a lot of members (over three million people).

13

Pros and cons either way. Eventually ours will firm up as has the USA’s – just a matter of time. In the mean time, it’s a constitutional wild west up here in the great white.

14

The USA’s hasn’t really firmed up yet and I hope that it won’t for a while. There is talk of amending it all the time. I would still like to see an Equal Right Amendment – guaranteeing equal rights regardless of gender.

And although Canadians seem to really have things going well in their country, it is difficult for me to trust “a reasonable consensus.” There have been too many times in my country’s history where what seemed reasonable was not.