Washington State, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire

[dustinzgirl]

And I'm hoping Oregon is right behind them! About dang time. I'm tired of profiling, tired of my constitutional rights being trampled on.

Washington state declared sovereignty from federal law

Oklahoma declared sovereignty

And New Hampshire too!

I'm to lazy to explain it, but this is what sovereignty is.

About fracking time I say!

[Drachir]

Good luck to these rather small states. I doubt that any resolution they pass will have much impact if the Federal government decides to overrule it. After all, if Bush could cancel California's efforts to reduce automobile emissions I don't expect these relatively small states will have much of a chance of standing up to the feds.

It sounds a bit like an attempt to copy the powers that the Canadian provinces possess, which are quite exceptional when compared to an American state.

There is a major difference, however, between the US and Canadian constitutions and that is that all powers not listed in the Canada Act automatically defer to the federal government. Also, there is specific clause in the document that gives the federal government the power to govern for "the peace, order, and good government of Canada," which has been taken to mean that when push comes to shove the federal government can do whatever it wants, provincial rights notwithstanding.

[dustinzgirl]

I'm hoping enough states will follow suit.

[Wiglaf]

Too many states want Federal money. That is how they get us to go along; if we don't do what they want they'll take our money. States have way more rights than Canadian provinces. However, since the Civil War and the New Deal, the threat of force and the power of the purse (accompanied by agressive use of the interstate commerce clause) has made federalism and state rights a foreign consept to Americans. I am sure you all know where I stand on the issue but, what I want will never happen in California; this state doesn't believe in democracy.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

Too many states want Federal money. That is how they get us to go along; if we don't do what they want they'll take our money. States have way more rights than Canadian provinces. However, since the Civil War and the New Deal, the threat of force and the power of the purse (accompanied by agressive use of the interstate commerce clause) has made federalism and state rights a foreign consept to Americans. I am sure you all know where I stand on the issue but, what I want will never happen in California; this state doesn't believe in democracy.

Yeah, thats why all the Californians keep moving up here!

LOL!

[Vladd67]

Congratulations, it seems everyday we lose more and more of ours

[Drachir]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

Too many states want Federal money. That is how they get us to go along; if we don't do what they want they'll take our money. States have way more rights than Canadian provinces. However, since the Civil War and the New Deal, the threat of force and the power of the purse (accompanied by agressive use of the interstate commerce clause) has made federalism and state rights a foreign consept to Americans. I am sure you all know where I stand on the issue but, what I want will never happen in California; this state doesn't believe in democracy.

I'm not sure that you are right about that, Wiglaf. Here are a few of the powers of Canadian provinces:
Complete control of all resources and the revenues from them - there are no Federal lands in Canada as there are in the US
Compete control of all social services
Complete control of education
Property and Civil Rights within the Province
The Administration of Justice in the Province

There is some overlap due to federal funding, but the provinces jealously guard all rights.

In addition, any amendment to the constitution must have approval of all provinces. This is not technically correct, but since the 1980s this has been the position of all federal governments.

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by Drachir

I'm not sure that you are right about that, Wiglaf. Here are a few of the powers of Canadian provinces:
Complete control of all resources and the revenues from them - there are no Federal lands in Canada as there are in the US
Compete control of all social services
Complete control of education
Property and Civil Rights within the Province
The Administration of Justice in the Province

There is some overlap due to federal funding, but the provinces jealously guard all rights.

In addition, any amendment to the constitution must have approval of all provinces. This is not technically correct, but since the 1980s this has been the position of all federal governments.

The Constitution provides that any right not given the federal government belongs to the states. This would basically include everything you mentioned. The Constitution however is a historical piece of parchment that has absolutly nothing to do with how the US is governed. Government land for military bases would fall under the Necessary and Proper clause; national parks I am unsure of how they justify it unless they bought the lands on the open market. Our resources are our property of the landowners. Education is under state control but, Congress uses money to influence it. Social services are not under federal jurisdiction under the Constitution; the feds don't care. They also don't fully fund all the ones they mandate either. Also wouldn't universal healthcare give the Canadian federal government control up there? Here for medical for the poor, states manage it but Congress controls the money through block grants. Property and civil rights law outside the ammendments are under state jurisdiction. Our Constitution provides a much more federalist system as it was influenced by those who feared it and prefered strengthening the original confederation. From what I have witnessed, the anti-federalists fears have largely come to fruition.

[Drachir]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

The Constitution provides that any right not given the federal government belongs to the states. This would basically include everything you mentioned. The Constitution however is a historical piece of parchment that has absolutly nothing to do with how the US is governed. Government land for military bases would fall under the Necessary and Proper clause; national parks I am unsure of how they justify it unless they bought the lands on the open market. Our resources are our property of the landowners. Education is under state control but, Congress uses money to influence it. Social services are not under federal jurisdiction under the Constitution; the feds don't care. They also don't fully fund all the ones they mandate either. Also wouldn't universal healthcare give the Canadian federal government control up there? Here for medical for the poor, states manage it but Congress controls the money through block grants. Property and civil rights law outside the ammendments are under state jurisdiction. Our Constitution provides a much more federalist system as it was influenced by those who feared it and prefered strengthening the original confederation. From what I have witnessed, the anti-federalists fears have largely come to fruition.

The concept of the original Canadian constitution (The British North America Act, 1867) was the opposite of what was intended in the US. The idea was to create a strong federal government to avoid the problems that had plagued the US (namely the US Civil War). As a result the provinces were given certain rights with the idea that any new powers would go to the federal government. In addition, any areas of overlapping jurisdiction such as movement between provinces came under federal authority. However, the powers given to the provinces as I outlined were quite considerable.

Federal funding of such programs as healthcare does give the federal government some influence over the provinces, however, federal funding of provincial programs is seen by most provinces as more of a right than a voluntary donation and any attempt to reduce such payments results in considerable fed-bashing. As a result Canada has tended to become much more decentralized than was originally intended. There are some difference that you would note, such as the fact that Canadian law is much more uniform from coast to coast. As an example the death penalty is not practiced in any Canadian province, in spite of the fact that the administration of justice is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

There are historical reasons for the evolution of the power stucture in Canada as well. French-speaking Quebec has tended to act as a bulwark against any instrusions into provincial authority and Quebec has constantly attempted to broaden its powers. Of course, whatever Quebec is given the other provinces insist on getting as well.

One factor that has tended to help increase the power of the federal government is the fact that Canada is a huge country with a relatively small population. As a result many projects such as the building of railways were not possible without federal aid in spite of the fact that transportation is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Also, for the most part, Canadians tend to favour a strong federal government rather than an increase in the powers of the provinces. This was shown in a national referendum on what was called the Charlottetown Accord which would have given the provinces greater powers. It was defeated by a majority of Canadians although some provinces, including Quebec did vote for it.

[Clansman]

Drachir, afraid I must correct you. The administration of justice may be an area of provincial control under s. 92 (organizing courts, prosecuting crimes, Legal Aid programs, etc.) of the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly the BNA Act), but criminal law is very clearly set out as a federal power under s. 91, so that criminal law is uniform across Canada. The Criminal Code, the Narcotics Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act are all federal statutes. The provinces have no criminal law-making power (they can only sentence people for up to 6 months for provincial offences). That is why there is uniformity of criminal law across Canada. The civil law is very different, with Quebec following the French Code Civile, and the rest of the provinces and territories following the British/US/Commonwealth common law.

With all due respect to our American neighbours, it is a shame that the federal government there did not retain control of criminal law, as there are widely varying, and destructive, interpretations of justice between the 50 states. Theoretically, one could be acting within the law on Interstate 81 in New York, and be facing life in prison for the same activity once they cross into Pennsylvania. Boggles the mind, really. This being said, we have 10 Securities regulators, instead of one, which is a real pain in the rear, and is really stupid, because Alberta and Quebec will not agree to relinquish this area to federal control, where it really needs to be.

Also, railways are an area of specific federal control under section 91, completely distinct from transportation under section 92. Railways have always been a federal responsibility.

However, your example fits for something like the Trans Canada Highway, as New Brunswick, for instance, is having the feds pay for most of the cost of finishing a four-lane highway to the Quebec border, because NB could never afford it. Other big projects like large hydro-electric projects, major bridges, etc. are often federally funded, because otherwise they would be too expensive for the provinces to do.

[Drachir]

Originally Posted by Clansman

Drachir, afraid I must correct you. The administration of justice may be an area of provincial control under s. 92 (organizing courts, prosecuting crimes, Legal Aid programs, etc.) of the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly the BNA Act), but criminal law is very clearly set out as a federal power under s. 91, so that criminal law is uniform across Canada. The Criminal Code, the Narcotics Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act are all federal statutes. The provinces have no criminal law-making power (they can only sentence people for up to 6 months for provincial offences). That is why there is uniformity of criminal law across Canada. The civil law is very different, with Quebec following the French Code Civile, and the rest of the provinces and territories following the British/US/Commonwealth common law.

Thanks, Clansman, but I think that is what I said or tried to say. Perhaps I did not express myself very well.

[Wiglaf]

What matters is that US states have more power under than the Canadian provinces yet we have less control in practice. That is the problem. If your constitution and practices largely agree and you are happy with it, you are fine. Unfortunately, we have a discrepancy in the US between the law and the actions of the federal government and at least I am not happy about it.

[Boneman]

Would you like the British to give it another go? Declare the War of Independence invalid, and we'll give it a jolly good try, old man.........

[Ursa major]

I think Wiglaf would find the muddling-through (although often the muddle stays as muddle and there's no "through" about it) of a constitutionless state - which isn't quite unitary and isn't quite federal but is almost all waffle - even more frustrating than he does the position in California.


And goodness knows what he'd make of the situation with respect to the EU (although he might approve of the free movement of all goods - agricultural ones included - across state borders ).

[Contrary Mary]

Boneman: You might want to consult the Queen on that one! She may take one looks at the mess over heare and say: "Are you crazy? We;ve enough problems over here in the UK--we do not need more!"