A constitution is “the fundamental law of the land, supreme as a legal matter over any other nonconstitutional law.” Its main function is to maintain and regulate the most basic matters regarding the organization and operation of society and government, but also, after the addition in 1982, to guarantee the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. The Constitution is the ultimate form of law in Canada, but it is far from flawless. It is often criticized for its lack of accommodation of the ethical values and social rights of many people. But more importantly, considering it is the constitution of a democratic nation, its greatest fault lies in its inability to enforce, or even outline many of the lawful practices of democratic governance.
…show more content…
It is a list of criteria, explained in the constitution, that outlines the requirements of amending (changing) the constitution. There are five different amending formulae, each with its own specific application. The first two pertain to situations that effect the entire nation, while the other three apply to more particular circumstances such as the internal issues of a single province. Only the first two formulae will be discussed. The first type of amendment, classified under section 42, subsection 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is known as an “amendment by general procedure”. Basically, this covers issues concerning the organization of parliament, such as the principle of proportionate representation of provinces in the House of Commons, the powers of the Senate, and the method of selecting Senators. In order for one of these changes to be made, the approval criteria stated in section 38, subsection 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 must be met as …show more content…
There are conventions by which the Prime Minister is usually expected to act; however, “these are political rules, not legal rules. They are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Politicians and government officials who do not follow them are not acting illegally, nor can courts enforce them.” James Madison said that “in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” The latter is, unfortunately, not a reality of Canadian politics. The most unfortunate aspect of the constitutional reform process is that the government, and more specifically, the Prime Minister, retains formal control of the amending formula that pertains to executive power. When speaking of democratizing the constitution, the first step would be to codify the legal conduct and constrain the executive powers of the Prime Minister. But due to section 44 in the Constitution Act, 1982, laws amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive government of Canada (the Prime Minister), may be made exclusively by parliament. As a result, for constraints to be put on the Prime Minister’s powers, the Prime Minister would have to approve them. Realistically, he would
It is a list of criteria, explained in the constitution, that outlines the requirements of amending (changing) the constitution. There are five different amending formulae, each with its own specific application. The first two pertain to situations that effect the entire nation, while the other three apply to more particular circumstances such as the internal issues of a single province. Only the first two formulae will be discussed. The first type of amendment, classified under section 42, subsection 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is known as an “amendment by general procedure”. Basically, this covers issues concerning the organization of parliament, such as the principle of proportionate representation of provinces in the House of Commons, the powers of the Senate, and the method of selecting Senators. In order for one of these changes to be made, the approval criteria stated in section 38, subsection 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 must be met as …show more content…
There are conventions by which the Prime Minister is usually expected to act; however, “these are political rules, not legal rules. They are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Politicians and government officials who do not follow them are not acting illegally, nor can courts enforce them.” James Madison said that “in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” The latter is, unfortunately, not a reality of Canadian politics. The most unfortunate aspect of the constitutional reform process is that the government, and more specifically, the Prime Minister, retains formal control of the amending formula that pertains to executive power. When speaking of democratizing the constitution, the first step would be to codify the legal conduct and constrain the executive powers of the Prime Minister. But due to section 44 in the Constitution Act, 1982, laws amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive government of Canada (the Prime Minister), may be made exclusively by parliament. As a result, for constraints to be put on the Prime Minister’s powers, the Prime Minister would have to approve them. Realistically, he would