this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9648 readers
664 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otters_raft@lemmy.ca
50
Referendum Reality? Half in Alberta & Saskatchewan call for vote on independence, but fewer would actually leave (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by avidamoeba@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Source: https://angusreid.org/referendum-alberta-saskatchewan-smith-moe/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

But as I pointed out, the super majority required to amend the Constitution means that it will never change.

look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.

I'm now wondering if you are Canadian because yes we actually can.

[–] considerealization@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.

See e.g., http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp

The reason we in Canada nowadays use the term referendum to mean mainly the non-binding  type is because at the beginning of the century the western provinces experimented with the binding referendum. But it was abandoned because the Manitoba law on the subject was declared unconstitutional in 1919, mainly on the ground that it usurped the power of the lieutenant-governor, as a representative of the crown, to veto legislation. It also interfered with the powers of the federal government, which appoints the lieutenant-governors and has the power to instruct them

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] considerealization@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Of course I am aware of the "notwithstanding clause", but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, "it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter" and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: "rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable".

To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.