3 ms·
Quebec never signed off on the 1982 constitutional reform, which created a mechanism for amending the constitution and finally fully separated Canada from the U
by retrac 5y ago
Quebec never signed off on the 1982 constitutional reform, which created a mechanism for amending the constitution and finally fully separated Canada from the UK government. Until that point, the constitution of Canada was technically part of UK law. Not entirely unlike the devolved Parliament of Scotland today. The UK Parliament could amend it, in theory unilaterally. (It was long-standing convention not to do so except when requested, by the 20th century.)
So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. (Long ago, Quebec's elected delegates did approve of the original Constitution Act in 1867.) Per the amendment formula, each province including Quebec has veto power over any further amendment that requires unanimous consent (affecting distribution of government powers, etc.) Which is now something of a stand-off. Getting an amendment that triggers that clause passed, seems all but impossible in contemporary Canada politically.
- 908B64B197 5y ago> So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. That sounds completely alien.
- colejohnson66 5y agoIf you’re familiar with the US Constitutional Amendment process, not all states have to sign onto the amendment for it to go into affect. And when it does, even the non-signers are bound by it.
- 908B64B197 5y agoCorrect... Except the process itself is described in the constitution, which every state signed.
- colejohnson66 5y agoThat is true. I forgot about that part.
- int_19h 5y agoUS Constitution had to be ratified by a minimum of 9 states (out of 13 total) before it went into effect. In practice, the Continental Congress made it operable with 11 signatures; the remaining 2 happened after that.