Of course changing and reforming the senate would not be an easy process it is a process that needs to happen for the betterment of the senate and the government of Canada. Canada’s government is a democracy and has always been a democracy. However in the government one important aspect of it is not democratic, the senators are appointed by the current in power Prime Minister. These senators that are appointed by the Prime Minister in power will always back the Prime Minister on every bill because he will only appoint senators from his own party. Every bill issued by the Prime Minister or party in charge will undoubtedly be passed by all of the senators appointed by him.
The Compact Theory of Confederation The provincial rights movement led to the “compact theory of Confederation.” Promoted by many provincial premiers, it contended that Confederation was a contract or a compact or a treaty among the original signatory provinces, and could not be revised without their consent. Although not historically or legally correct, this theory had much support in provincial governments and Quebec. It also had implications for developing a made-in-Canada constitutional amending formula: which parts of the constitution could be amended with how much provincial consent? An alternate version of the theory was that Confederation was a compact between English and French, and could not be revised without the consent of both groups. The implication of that was often taken to be that Quebec represented the French, and whether or not the other provinces had a veto over constitutional amendments, Quebec did!
First, both Aboriginals and the rest of Canada are “locked in an inescapable interdependence” (CRIC 2). Therefore, regardless of whether or not Aboriginals adopt a form of self government, they will always be a part of Canada (CRIC 2). A second advantage of “citizens plus,” as opposed to self-government, is that self-government would establish Aboriginals as outsiders (CRIC 2). If Canadians do not consider Aboriginals to be fellow citizens, then that will reduce the likelihood of Aboriginals being given assistance by the Canadian government (CRIC 2). However, if Aboriginals are seen as being a part of the Canadian community, as they would through “citizens plus,” then they would be far more likely to receive a better flow of resources from the government (CRIC 2).
‘A political, not a judicial institution.’ Discuss this view of the Supreme Court. It can be argued whether the Supreme Court is more of the political or judicial institution because of the number of issues such as appointment process and who judges appointed by, as well as their power of judicial review which could stop any legislation by determining it unconstitutional. However, there are still cases when Supreme Court judges could decide to make restraint decisions, which are independent from any other branch of the government and those decisions are purely based on the Constitution. To start with, the Supreme Court can said to be a political institution because all the judges are being appointed and confirmed by politicians, who are members of other two branches of federal government (Congress and President). It is clear that president choose his nominee from people who share the same (similar) political philosophy and ideology.
Negotiations last for 18 months during which dissenting ministers, along with rulings from the Supreme Court and various provincial courts, threatened to foil the efforts. Trudeau reached an agreement with nine of the Premiers, with the notable exception of Lévesque. Quebec's refusal to agree to the new constitution became a source of continued acrimony between the federal and Quebec governments. The Charter is intended to protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada from the policies and actions of all levels of government. It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.
Which also allowed the federal government the opportunity for revenue. One of the main emphases for the Hamilton and the Federalist Party was that the federal government was too over power the states. They felt that leaving too much power in the hands of states would only create a weak type of government, with very little power to act. Citizen’s rights would be protected by the legislation, court systems, and of course the Bill Of Rights; distrusting the people with the vote. The federalist created the House of Reps which was directly voted by the people.
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.
After all, if the people don’t like it, they can always vote them out of office! This dilemma has often been debated about a representative government: are the elected officials expected to vote the way the majority of his or her constituents would desire, as amplified by the famous observer of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville? Or, are elected officials expected to
Citizens should be encouraged to embrace their citizenship, and not merely as a duty, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own government for the sake of common good and in building the culture of life. In addition, it is an exercise of significant individual power. Now, most Americans will tell you that our politicians have all the power, but I disagree. Although it is true that our politicians do make the laws, here in the United States of America, the people have the authority. If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do.
8/2/11 I think we need a bicameral legislature today because we wouldn’t want just one branch to make our law and be able to do want they want. We need to have that second opinion so we have an equal discussion on all matters in the United States. If we had only one branch they could make all kinds of laws and we would have to abide buy them even though they may not be fair to everyone. We need to keep it the way it is and elected new bleed into the system. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES A bicameral is two chambers; the Senate and the House of Representatives.