5 ms·

Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another?

by ersii 10y ago

msbarnett 10y ago
> Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another? To me, saying "The Canadian government is doing X", is a statement about the activities of the Federal government. The use of the definite article implies singularity. A provincial government is not the Canadian government -- it's one of many in a federal system. It might in some narrow sense be technically accurate to rewrite the headline "Texas Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces" to read "the US Government Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces", but it's misleading to the reader and drops a lot of important context. It leads to an impression of a much broader situation than actually exists.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities. So to describe a provincial government as "the government of Canada" is far more accurate than calling Texas part of the US government.
  - jhbadger 10y ago
    There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American system of divided sovereigns is exceptional. It's weird.
      - jhbadger 10y ago
        Yes. Provincial courts are a thing in Canada in addition to Federal courts. I'm not sure about the "not touching" rule, but they are separate, because many offenses at the provincial level (i.e. not having a sign in French for your business in Quebec) aren't offenses at the Federal level.
        msbarnett 10y ago
        Hell, the entire Quebec legal system is distinct from anywhere else in Canada, owing to its roots in France's legal traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law
        Canada 10y ago
        Only civil law.
        msbarnett 10y ago
        This is just goal post shifting. That the US and Canada draw different lines between federal and state/provincial matters does not magically make the Provincial government of Newfoundland some adjunct arm of the government of Canada. Yes, in Canada, criminal law is a purely federal matter. Things that aren't a federal matter, like civil law, or like the bloody relocation program this story was about, vary wildly between provinces. This whole insane dispute was whether you could refer to the actions of one Province as being a program run by "The government of Canada" without hopelessly misleading any sane person into believing it was a federal program. You simply cannot. It's a massive misunderstanding of Canada's governments to think otherwise. On Provincial matters, the provinces are wholly independent and asinine pedantry about minuteau of how constitutional devolution of powers to states or provinces works doesn't change that.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    Enumerating the rights of states in the US is hard. The things that are clearly states rights is unclear. People assert various things as being states rights, but I think they are incorrect that this is an answerable question. There is usually an assertion that something is in that category, but others will not agree. Is the right to marry with restrictions a state right or a federal right or both?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Its actually not hard, as there aren't any. States (like all governments) don't have rights, they have powers. And those powers are usually detailed in the state constitution. The federal Constitution limits the powers of states, assigns certain roles to the states, and reserves certain powers to them (or them and the people together), but generally the powers of the state are defined per state by the state's own foundational governing documents, just as the powers of the federal government are in its Constitution.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        State constitutions regulate the relationship between the state and its people. So they do not have rights per se in that relationship. But the term "state's rights" refers to the relationship between the states and the federal government. In that case states really do have certain rights against the fed much as individual persons have rights under the US constitution. This is most clear in case where the state sues various wings of the fed, asserting their rights under the US constitution. One of the largest cases in recent years would be Shelby County[1] v. Holder that struck down much of the voting rights act. At the most basic level, states have the right to bring cases in federal courts. [1] Shelby County is a local government, a devision of the state of Alabama under the Alabama constitution. Holder is an attorney general, an employee of the federal government and, importantly, not an elected official. Suing the prez is a very different ballgame.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        Alternatively, the rights of the people of a state to choose how they are governed (along certain dimensions) without regard to the federal government.
  - msbarnett 10y ago
    > Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. As recent as the 1949 it was an entirely separate country. It is a latecomer to the Canadian Confederation. America is not unique in its federalism. > Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities. This is completely incorrect. In point of fact, Provinces have more power than the federal government (and, in practice, more power than states do in the US). Section 33 of the charter devolves power to override the federal constitution or acts of the federal parliament to provincial legislatures. This so-called not-withstanding clause effectively grounds British-style parliamentary supremacy at the provincial level.
    - Canada 10y ago
      > And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. Name one indictable offense unique to any province. Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. There is a real difference between the sovereignty of a Canadian province and a US state. In Canada the federal government has substantially more legal authority. Actually, a better way to look at it is that a province has a lot less authority.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        > Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. Possession of Marijuana in BC vs the rest of the country.
        Canada 10y ago
        Nice try :)
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      >>>This so-called not-withstanding clause effectively grounds British-style parliamentary supremacy at the provincial level. Um, that is my point. All of Canada is under a single constitution and, technically, one Queen. The US has multiple constitutions, at least one of which (MA) predates the US federal. Find a Canadian province with a constitution allowing it to ignore actions of the national government, ignore without separating. I can cite dozens, hundreds of areas where US states can tell the feds to take a hike. In the community of nations, that is strange.

Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another?

by ersii 10y ago

Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another?

msbarnett 10y ago

> Isn't a province... government? Might not be the State/Federal government, but yet surely it's government one way or another? To me, saying "The Canadian government is doing X", is a statement about the activities of the Federal government. The use of the definite article implies singularity. A provincial government is not the Canadian government -- it's one of many in a federal system. It might in some narrow sense be technically accurate to rewrite the headline "Texas Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces" to read "the US Government Urges Court To Ban Enforcement Of All Federal Pro-Transgender Restroom Policies In Workplaces", but it's misleading to the reader and drops a lot of important context. It leads to an impression of a much broader situation than actually exists.

sandworm101 10y ago
Texas is a bad example. The US is a federation of what are essentially 50 different countries, or at least different sovereign governments. Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. It's its own government with its own constitution and areas of absolute authority (See 'states rights'). Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities. So to describe a provincial government as "the government of Canada" is far more accurate than calling Texas part of the US government.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  There's not really much difference between the idea of states and provinces. Just like US states, they have laws and elected officials to themselves. It's the same in many other countries as well. It's pure American exceptionalism to think their "states" are somehow unique in this.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Does any other country have separate courthouses for the local and federal governments? Courthouses that hear virtually identical cases, but apply different rules of evidence and procedure depending upon in which states the litigants reside? Courthouses that literally cannot be allowed touch each other? There are four or five standard courses at US law schools virtually dedicated to state/fed splits. The American system of divided sovereigns is exceptional. It's weird.
    - jhbadger 10y ago
      Yes. Provincial courts are a thing in Canada in addition to Federal courts. I'm not sure about the "not touching" rule, but they are separate, because many offenses at the provincial level (i.e. not having a sign in French for your business in Quebec) aren't offenses at the Federal level.
      - msbarnett 10y ago
        Hell, the entire Quebec legal system is distinct from anywhere else in Canada, owing to its roots in France's legal traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law
        Canada 10y ago
        Only civil law.
        msbarnett 10y ago
        This is just goal post shifting. That the US and Canada draw different lines between federal and state/provincial matters does not magically make the Provincial government of Newfoundland some adjunct arm of the government of Canada. Yes, in Canada, criminal law is a purely federal matter. Things that aren't a federal matter, like civil law, or like the bloody relocation program this story was about, vary wildly between provinces. This whole insane dispute was whether you could refer to the actions of one Province as being a program run by "The government of Canada" without hopelessly misleading any sane person into believing it was a federal program. You simply cannot. It's a massive misunderstanding of Canada's governments to think otherwise. On Provincial matters, the provinces are wholly independent and asinine pedantry about minuteau of how constitutional devolution of powers to states or provinces works doesn't change that.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  Enumerating the rights of states in the US is hard. The things that are clearly states rights is unclear. People assert various things as being states rights, but I think they are incorrect that this is an answerable question. There is usually an assertion that something is in that category, but others will not agree. Is the right to marry with restrictions a state right or a federal right or both?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Its actually not hard, as there aren't any. States (like all governments) don't have rights, they have powers. And those powers are usually detailed in the state constitution. The federal Constitution limits the powers of states, assigns certain roles to the states, and reserves certain powers to them (or them and the people together), but generally the powers of the state are defined per state by the state's own foundational governing documents, just as the powers of the federal government are in its Constitution.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      State constitutions regulate the relationship between the state and its people. So they do not have rights per se in that relationship. But the term "state's rights" refers to the relationship between the states and the federal government. In that case states really do have certain rights against the fed much as individual persons have rights under the US constitution. This is most clear in case where the state sues various wings of the fed, asserting their rights under the US constitution. One of the largest cases in recent years would be Shelby County[1] v. Holder that struck down much of the voting rights act. At the most basic level, states have the right to bring cases in federal courts. [1] Shelby County is a local government, a devision of the state of Alabama under the Alabama constitution. Holder is an attorney general, an employee of the federal government and, importantly, not an elected official. Suing the prez is a very different ballgame.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        Alternatively, the rights of the people of a state to choose how they are governed (along certain dimensions) without regard to the federal government.
- msbarnett 10y ago
  > Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. As recent as the 1949 it was an entirely separate country. It is a latecomer to the Canadian Confederation. America is not unique in its federalism. > Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smaller pieces without absolute authorities. This is completely incorrect. In point of fact, Provinces have more power than the federal government (and, in practice, more power than states do in the US). Section 33 of the charter devolves power to override the federal constitution or acts of the federal parliament to provincial legislatures. This so-called not-withstanding clause effectively grounds British-style parliamentary supremacy at the provincial level.
  - Canada 10y ago
    > And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. Name one indictable offense unique to any province. Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. There is a real difference between the sovereignty of a Canadian province and a US state. In Canada the federal government has substantially more legal authority. Actually, a better way to look at it is that a province has a lot less authority.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      > Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. Possession of Marijuana in BC vs the rest of the country.
      - Canada 10y ago
        Nice try :)
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    >>>This so-called not-withstanding clause effectively grounds British-style parliamentary supremacy at the provincial level. Um, that is my point. All of Canada is under a single constitution and, technically, one Queen. The US has multiple constitutions, at least one of which (MA) predates the US federal. Find a Canadian province with a constitution allowing it to ignore actions of the national government, ignore without separating. I can cite dozens, hundreds of areas where US states can tell the feds to take a hike. In the community of nations, that is strange.