3 ms·

The v5 or v6 would be Canada and South Africa - which have widely praised (by legal scholars) Constitutions. But neither are really great or terrible. Canada d

The v5 or v6 would be Canada and South Africa - which have widely praised (by legal scholars) Constitutions. But neither are really great or terrible. Canada didn’t really change much, and South Africa hasn’t been doing great. The “West German Basic Law” was widely condemned: * it was unrealistic to have strong privacy protections for a nation filled with refugee camps and few private homes * the protections for the family were meaningless when so few nuclear families survived (something like 70% of the country was female) * the mandate to reunify was unrealistic and possibly undesirable * there were no provisions for the victims of Nazi Germany * it favored the establishment of strong, stable leaders - which brought back memories of Hitler * many of the civil liberties - such as abolishing the death penalty - were just excuses to prevent punishment of war criminals (which was true) * claiming the lands East of the Oder as part of Germany was unrealistic Buy it turned out to be an extremely effective Constitution that lead to the transformation of Germany and its eventual reunification (mostly).

theluketaylor 4y ago
As a Canadian I'd be surprised to learn our constitution was considered top notch by legal scholars. The amendment process is very onerous. 7/10 provinces haven't ever really agreed on the colour of the sky, let alone something as important as new constitutional rules. It took some very special backroom wrangling to pass it in the first place and I don't see a path to amending it during my lifetime. Meech Lake came close and very nearly broke the country. The notwithstanding clause was necessary to get it passed at all, but really takes some of the teeth out of the charter of rights and freedoms. When parties hold majority control of the House of Commons or a provincial legislature a lot of what keeps their power in check is mostly norms it turns out. One of the few actual laws that would really impede them is the charter, but portions of it can be ignored. Overall I'm very happy we have the 1982 Constitution Act, but I certainly wouldn't offer it up as a blueprint if someone came asking for assistance in drafting a constitution. The Charter itself as a portion of the larger constitution (minus the notwithstanding clause) is a very special piece of law that deserves some recognition internationally, but as a whole it wasn't even 10 years before the real issues were exposed with the whole document.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  My source for Canada and South Africa is Ruth Badger Ginsburg. She suggested insurrectionists in Egypt emulate the South African and Canadian Constitutions, rather than the US Constitution. She wasn’t insulting the US Constitution, just emphasizing it’s the product of circumstances that didn’t apply to Egypt. Seems like the Canadian Constitution is similarly constructed - taking the specific time, place, customs into account. Not a bad thing at all. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/ruth-bader-ginsburg-taken-way-out-of-context/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/ruth-bader-ginsburg-taken-...
  - parineum 4y ago
    > Canada and South Africa - which have widely praised (by legal scholars) > My source for Canada and South Africa is Ruth Badger Ginsburg. So just the one legal scholar then?
  - theluketaylor 4y ago
    > Ruth Badger Ginsburg Ruth Badger Ginsburg should be a Supreme Court Justice on a kids show filled with animals who makes landmark decisions the real Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have proud of. Your own link contains my very point: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a modern piece of human rights legislation. RBG specifically calls out the Charter, not the Canadian constitution as a whole. The Charter is like the US Bill of Rights, a small section of a larger document dealing specifically with civil rights. The rest of the Canadian constitution is a messy bit of parliamentary wrangling from across 2 centuries delegating the country of Canada into existence and separating it from the UK.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So the law can override it as they please? I prefer the US version that says "Congress shall make no law ..."

theluketaylor 4y ago

As a Canadian I'd be surprised to learn our constitution was considered top notch by legal scholars. The amendment process is very onerous. 7/10 provinces haven't ever really agreed on the colour of the sky, let alone something as important as new constitutional rules. It took some very special backroom wrangling to pass it in the first place and I don't see a path to amending it during my lifetime. Meech Lake came close and very nearly broke the country. The notwithstanding clause was necessary to get it passed at all, but really takes some of the teeth out of the charter of rights and freedoms. When parties hold majority control of the House of Commons or a provincial legislature a lot of what keeps their power in check is mostly norms it turns out. One of the few actual laws that would really impede them is the charter, but portions of it can be ignored. Overall I'm very happy we have the 1982 Constitution Act, but I certainly wouldn't offer it up as a blueprint if someone came asking for assistance in drafting a constitution. The Charter itself as a portion of the larger constitution (minus the notwithstanding clause) is a very special piece of law that deserves some recognition internationally, but as a whole it wasn't even 10 years before the real issues were exposed with the whole document.

pyuser583 4y ago
My source for Canada and South Africa is Ruth Badger Ginsburg. She suggested insurrectionists in Egypt emulate the South African and Canadian Constitutions, rather than the US Constitution. She wasn’t insulting the US Constitution, just emphasizing it’s the product of circumstances that didn’t apply to Egypt. Seems like the Canadian Constitution is similarly constructed - taking the specific time, place, customs into account. Not a bad thing at all. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/ruth-bader-ginsburg-taken-way-out-of-context/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/ruth-bader-ginsburg-taken-...
- parineum 4y ago
  > Canada and South Africa - which have widely praised (by legal scholars) > My source for Canada and South Africa is Ruth Badger Ginsburg. So just the one legal scholar then?
- theluketaylor 4y ago
  > Ruth Badger Ginsburg Ruth Badger Ginsburg should be a Supreme Court Justice on a kids show filled with animals who makes landmark decisions the real Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have proud of. Your own link contains my very point: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a modern piece of human rights legislation. RBG specifically calls out the Charter, not the Canadian constitution as a whole. The Charter is like the US Bill of Rights, a small section of a larger document dealing specifically with civil rights. The rest of the Canadian constitution is a messy bit of parliamentary wrangling from across 2 centuries delegating the country of Canada into existence and separating it from the UK.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So the law can override it as they please? I prefer the US version that says "Congress shall make no law ..."