i seams to remember hearing that USA is a federation and EU a confederation and that a confederation is looser than a federation
does anyone know for surethe difference ?
A Federation is a government composed of partially self-governing regions, that have some control over their laws & administration.
A Confederation is similar, but has a weak central government, or consists of a surrender of some parts of sovreignity to the central government, while remaining independent in internal authority. Most of the power lies in the various component states.
Example–
The various States of the US do not have their own foreign embassies–this is handled by the Federal Government. The member States of the EU each have the right to treat with foreign powers on their own, so they are a Confederation.
Also, Federations have Vulcans. 
Yeah, and all Confederations have are Firrekans. 
what’s this mesopotaniam qodes that you are writing :mad:
On the risk of being massively wooshed,
The United Federation of Planets from Star Trek has Vulcans, e.g. Spock and the Terran Confederation from the Wing Commander series has Firrekans, which are basically 7-foot intelligent birds. They play a role in some of the additional missions following the first Wing Commander game.
Both words come from the Latin feodus, “covenant” – also the source of “feudal.” It’s really more of a continuum than a dichotomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation
Canada is a confederation. The provinces can nullify many federal laws if they don’t likem them. The United States, in its early days, was a confederation. The Constitution was drawn up because it was pretty much impossible to get the states to agree on anything except that the confederation sucked.
Canada isn’t a confederation, it’s a federation. The provinces don’t have the power to nullify federal laws. On the other hand, there are many domains that are solely under provincial responsibility, and the provinces do not like it when the federal tries to involve itself in these domains.
Switzerland is, I believe, an example of a modern confederation. The US was a confederation between 1776 and 1789, but the federal government was too weak to get anything done (I think Congress didn’t have any way to enforce attendance of the states’ representatives), so the states agreed to a new constitution that made it a federation.
Really? I’m sure that I remember hearing some Canadian politicos on TV talking about a certain law that had been nullified. When the federal government tries to intrude into provincial domains, do the provinces tend to ignore the improper law, or try to circumvent it in some way? I’m wondering if maybe the guys on TV were talking about some action which (in their opinion) amounted to nullification.
Also, I’m thinking that I might be colluding nullification with the Notwithstanding Clause, where the legislature can keep unconstitutional laws in effect.
In any event, I would argue that Canada is a confederation, at least compared to the United States, because the Canadian federal government seems to be much less powerful than its US counterpart.
Yah, the Firrekans also feature rather centrally in the Wing Commander novel Freedom Flight, which featured Hunter, the drunken cigar-chomping Australian space fighter pilot and some-times liberator of worlds.
You have Vulcans? :dubious:
Someone more familiar with constitutional law (Northern Piper?) could give a better answer than me, but from what I remember the federal government doesn’t blatantly intrude on provincial domains, since that would be unconstitutional and the courts would in all likelihood say so. What it will do is, for example, create a fund to distribute money to organisms in a domain that should be under the responsibility of the provincial governments. So there’s not much that the provinces can do other than to protest. There is an ongoing dispute between the federal and the provinces, with the provinces claiming that the federal is starving them of funds while racking large surpluses, a situation that has now been recognized by the current Conservative government.
I don’t know what it might be; I haven’t heard anything like this recently.
Just to be precise, the Notwithstanding Clause allows the federal and provincial legislatures to keep in effect laws that infringe on some specific parts of the constitution, for a limited time.
Maybe the federal government in Canada is less powerful than in the US, but that doesn’t make Canada a confederation. I was just reading about the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, since it appears that it will be dissolved in the next few weeks, and this is what I have in mind when I think of a confederation. The two constituent countries’ interior policies are completely distinct; it’s pretty much only their foreign policy that is in the hands of the (con)federal government.
As I understand it, Canada is technically a federation, not a confederation (to the extent that those terms are solidly defined); the process was called confederation basically as a way of selling it to the various colonies, implying they would be more independent than they actually would end up being.
It’s not the best link possible, but here is a copy of the Canadian constitution. Section 91 lists the responsibilities of the federal government and section 92 lists the responsibilities of each provincial government. (You’ll need to scroll down.) There are other sections outlining who has certain other responsibilities. For example, section 93 gives the responsibility for education to the provinces.
Actually, you might be surprised at how much power the Canadian government has. Look carefully at section 92 (10)(c):
(Bolding mine.) Even though subsection 92 (10) is in the provincial responsibilities section, it lists yet more federal responsibilities. These are listed in sub-subsections (a) and (b). And this sub-subsection–92 (10)(c)–is the federal government’s Declaratory Power. As you might guess, it gives Parliament the power to declare something normally provincial to be a federal matter. Pretty powerful stuff.
The impression I get from the Canadian constitution–and I could be wrong on this, so if any Dopers knowledgeable in Canadian constitutional matters can help, it would be appreciated–is that if something is not specifically stated as being a provincial responsiility, it is deemed to be a federal one. This is the opposite of the US constitution, which states that if something is not specifically stated as being a federal responsibility, it belongs to the states or to the people. But if my impression is correct, it would make for a very powerful federal government indeed.
You are correct.
severus is right - neither level of government can nullify laws passed by the other level. If a provincial government doesn’t like a federal law, it can put political pressure on the federal government to change it. Alternatively, the province can take the federal government to court, asking the courts to review the validity of the federal law. If the federal law is not supportable under the federal powers set out in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the courts can declare that the federal law is ultra vires Parliament and of no force or effect. Several provinces tried this route to challenge the federal firearms registry a few years ago, but the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law was supportable under the federal criminal law power: Reference re Firearms Act (Canada). Perhaps the politicos you heard were talking about a federal law that the courts had held ultra vires?
That might be - but a province can only use the Notwithstanding Clause (section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) to insulate one of its own laws from review under certain sections fo the Charter, and the Parliament can only use it to insulate a federal law from the Charter. Neither level of government can use the notwithstanding clause to nullify a law passed by the other government.
As others have commented, there isn’t a strict definition of federal v. confederal, but in my opinion, it’s not the amount of power that the federal government has, but whether the powers of both levels of government are constitutionally entrenched, such that neither can intrude on the others’ powers, nor unilaterally leave the country. By that test, the U.S. and Canada are both federations, while the E.U. is a confederation, because the various members of the E.U. have retained their sovereignty and could withdraw unilaterally from the various treaties that make up the E.U. By contrast, the Civil War (south of the border) and the Secession Reference (north of the border) both ruled out unilateral secession by a state or province.
Actually, there are two residual clauses - the opening words of section 91, setting out the federal powers, and the closing phrase of section 92, setting out the provincial powers.
Section 91 opens with what is often referred to as the POGG power (from “peace, order and good government”):
and then goes on to list the heads of federal power.
So anything that isn’t within provincial powers falls under federal jurisdiction. However, to determine what is a matter of provincial power, you have to look at section 92, and there you find sub-section (16) at the end of the list of provincial powers:
The courts have interpreted this as an additional residuary clause, directing that some matters fall under provincial jurisdiction, even if not expressly enumerated, if they are analogous to the other heads of provincial power.
To illustrate how these two clauses work in practice, consider two areas that have grown in importance since Confederation (and yes, even though we are a federation, we use the term “Confederation” to mean the creation of the country): aviation and health care. You won’t find either listed in sections 91 or 92.
Aviation not mentioned at all (although lighter than air flight existed in 1867, and there is in fact a reference to balloon travel in the Confederation Debates).
The only reference to health care is allocation of jurisdiction over hospitals - Parliament has “quarantine and marine hospitals” (s. 91(11)), while the provinces have jurisdition over other types of hospitals. But no reference to what we today refer to as the “health care system”, which is much more comprehensive and considered a matter of public responsibility than what the Fathers of Confederation envisaged.
So how to allocate jurisdiction over these two areas? By analogy to the allocation of powers in the existing lists of federal and provincial powers in sections 91 and 92. Spoons mentioned section 92(10). The other two sub-clauses of section 92(10) give Parliament jurisdiction over
Clearly, the Fathers of Confederation turned their mind to inter-provincial and international travel, and referring to the specific types in existence in 1867, concluded that Parliament should have exclusive jursidiction over it. Aviation is simply another type of international and interprovincial travel, with the added characteristic that it’s crucial to have a single air traffic control system, since the lines on the map marking provincial boundaries don’t extend upwards. That led the Supreme Court to conclude that aviation is a matter of exclusive federal power, under POGG - it’s a matter of national concern, not provincial.
By contrast, although the modern health care system is not mentioned specifically in section 92, the Supreme Court has held that the province already controls much of the related issues relating to health care (the hospitals, regulation of the professions, muncipalities), that by analogy health care is a provincial matter under s. 92(16).
You have to keep in mind that sections 91 and 92 set out legislative powers: the power to enact laws. However, spending public money is not a legislative act, so it has never been held to be subject to judicial review under sections 91 and 92. Thus, Parliament spends federal tax money on the health care system by transfer payments to the provinces, and sets conditions on the way the provinces can use the money. Health care is not an area of federal legislative power, but this use of the spending power has not been challenged successfully.
But note that the provinces do the same thing. For example, international relations and international trade are both areas of exclusive federal legislative authority, but provinces have increasingly set up their own trade missions in foreign countries to advance provincial interests. (Quebec and Alberta tend to lead the way on this.) They’re not legislating in an area of federal jurisdiction, just spending provincial tax dollars in a way that they consider important to their consituents, just like the feds do with health care transfer payments.
That must be it. This was several years ago when I heard this, and clearly I misunderstood what they were talking about. Given that, I have to agree that Canada is a Federation. Thanks for the clarification, guys.
As to issues of state sovereignty, it’s interesting to note that prior to the Civil War, there was no reason to believe that a US state couldn’t unilaterally secede. Massachusetts almost seceded during the War of 1812, and certainly the South felt that they had this right in the 1860’s. Even today, you’ll occasionally hear Texas grumbling about independance.