Comments on: Constitutional Coup Averted In Illinois

By: Ed Weissman

Ed Weissman — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:18:32 +0000

Elizabeth. If you mean that Art 35 is not part of the Charter then I think I disagree with you. Making it not part of the charter exempts it from the notwithstanding clause. The Charter states that it cannot be used to reduce Art 35 rights. As well, the U.S. has nothing like Nunavit.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:15:44 +0000

You're not alone, Ed.

And, that is why First Nations peoples in our fair country continue to struggle for recognition of their aboriginal and treaty rights, including their inherent right to self-determination.

By: Ed Weissman

Ed Weissman — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:19:40 +0000

Elizabeth. I don't follow

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:40:55 +0000

Whoa, Ed!

You just brought back a veritable flood of memories...all of them very, very bad.

Of course, I speak of the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal and treaty rights and how First Nations people were pretty much screwed by that patriation...well, that was the intent, anyway. There would be some consolation later when the Supreme Court, in the Sparrow case, had a thing or two to say about Section 35 and what the word 'existing' meant...and didn't mean...

Section 35 of the Constitution: All existing aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Funnily enough, there is nothing about the rights of Native Americans in the US Constitution and yet the rights of Native Americans to self-determination, for example, have more meaning in the US than in Canada. So much for words on paper...even if it is a country's guiding principles.

By: Ed Weissman

Ed Weissman — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:36:55 +0000

I actually coined the phrase 'constitutional coup' in 1982 when a prof. at York U. in Toronto. Pierre Trudeau, PM at the time, wanted to 'patriate' the constitution which was still a law passed by the Parliament in Westminster. Canada had been a self-governing Domionion since 1867 and independent since 1931 (you could argue 1923, 1926, and other mid 20th century years). As the first Dominion, its constitution did not contain an amendment clause. By usage, all the provinces and the federal government would request the change(s) from the British Parliament which would automatically so do. Quebec stood against the patriation which also included an amending clause which did not require unanimity and included a Charter of Rights. So here's the CONSTITUTIONAL COUP, Trudeau said to the Brits, as one sovereign nation to another, you cannot look behind our government's request to amend and partriate the constitution and also rename it and its predecessors from British North America Acts to Canada Acts. As he put it, 'they have to hold their noses and pass it.' They did. I wrote about it at the time. What I find fascinating is the way in which Americans see a constitution as only law and not also custom and usage.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:45:38 +0000

Oooo A Trek reference!!! :D

Gotta love it! :D

Michale....

By: fstanley

fstanley — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:39:15 +0000

I think the Governer should resign but since most elected officials refuse to step down there should be a clear process to remove them.

I think that there should be a national protocol for the removal of an elected official. It gets very confusing when each state has its own method.

...Stan