Well I'm not enormously well-versed on recent Canadian politics so could you point me to the occurrence you're referring to?

By the way, the Queen wouldn't disband it, the Governor-General would. The dynamic of Governor-Generals is quite a bit more complicated that 'they do what the Queen says full stop'.

While interpreting the amendments is a matter of precedent and judicial decisions, it is still obvious based on the straight reading that we have a right to practice our religion in our homes and in our churches and that the government can't take that away from us, for instance. It is also obvious that we can be critical of our elected officials on the web and in print without fear of arrest. Yes, there are arguments for and against various aspects that are right on the edge. For instance, guns. Nobody will argue that an outright ban of all guns violates the Constitution, but does banning full automatics? How about banning carrying them in certain zones? Making getting a license more difficult? Nonetheless, it is clear that there will always be handguns available to the majority of the populace unless we have a constitutional amendment and that is clearly laid out within the constitution itself as to what is required to make it happen.

Codifying is the best way to guarantee your officials don't act against the will of the people and it provides a means for the people to say "See, we have these basic rights." while still allowing for reasonable interpretation of that codification.

If you're referring to the 2008-2009 election then even from a cursory reading it seems to me to be an internal Canadian political problem which is by no means as clear cut as you're presenting it.

Sorry to double-post.

Draugnar - yes, that is one of the strengths of a codified constitution. There are pros and cons of both. My point was that uncodified constitutions, while rare, have their own benefits and can have tangible rights that maintain a level of freedom commensurate with written-constitution-holding Western democracies.

So what are strengths, as you see it, of an uncodified one?

The Prime Minister "asks" the GG to prorogue Parliament, and the GG does. It's a symbolic office.

@michigangoof - What do you expect to be called, goof. You yokels love your freed..errrr guns more than your children.

You don't know me, you know nothing about me, and please don't ever speak about my children again.

Ignore maple, he is a troll. Hereward is a reasonable person who will talk to you legitimately about the differences of our governments and compare and contrast them.

Maple used to be a friendly Canadian. Somewhere along the line he turned into a real douchebag. Probably after he visited the US and he loved it so much that he applied for a permanent visa and they rejected him because he was a registered sex offender.

Sad really.

@ philcore, that's a despicable comment
( that MichiganMan was a registered sex offender )
and reflects more on you as being pathetic in this instance

to a more worthy discussion, in Australia we have a similar
constitutional set up as does Canada, where there are clearly defined powers,
but also undefined powers, ( in our Constitution ) and Governors ( at State level )
and a Governor General ( at the Federal level )
We have a High Court where any contested "Constitutional matter" can be clarified
Interestingly our first Australian Governor General was Sir Isaac Isaacs, an Australian of Jewish descent
Governors and Governor Generals are "chosen" by Her Majesty's Government in the UK from reccomendations made by the Australian Government

Ahem... I think philcore was calling Mapleleaf a pedo, not me.

Actually, the last time I graced your foetid shithole, they begged me to buy Detroit.

I decided to spend a little more money and bought a beer instead.

Crossed the Ambassador Bridge to see your crack whore mom on Mother's Day, huh?... Awwww you Canucks are so sentimental. I am sure she appreciated the bottle of maple syrup ...perfect for her pancakes after being up all night sucking dick for crack money. Those crazy jokers you met up were playing all if us Michiganders enjoy playing, it's called "Trick the dumbledick Canuck!" We try to see if we can trick you Great White Northerners into doing funny things, like buying Detroit from people who OBVIOUSLY don't own it. Seems you're slightly sharper than most, and couldn't be tricked into parting with your Canadian Dollars, eh?

a game

@majormitch, it was maple, not michiganman, as Michigan said. Not sure how you got that one confused. Although I assume you feel the same way, regardless of the Target.

@michiganman: not all sex offenders are pedos ... I would never accuse someone of that as a joke or an insult. I was thinking more along the lines of a pervy flasher or something waaay less offensive than a pedophile. Some things are off limits, even for humor's sake.

@Draugnar

Well there are several, such as:

- Flexibility. An unwritten constitution is more easily amended to keep up with societal and political changes.
- The judiciary have no constitutional role (beyond judicial review which is a beast of it's own...) and Parliament is sovereign. Seeing as Parliament is theoretically representative of the people this could be viewed as a good thing.
- No laws are above one another. 'Constitutional' laws and statute law have the same status.
- The system in the UK normally (what we have right now is something of an anomaly) produces a strong government which can make changes if necessary. You don't tend to see the deadlock you see with constitutional arrangements.

It is an unusual way of doing things. As I said only a handful of countries don't use constitutions but the non-theocratic ones seem to do pretty well (UK and NZ).

Clearly, americans love their guns more than their own children. Children are murdered en masse, and ALL OF THE GUN YOKELS show up just to remind the grieving families of what is MORE IMPORTANT. I start a thread here, to illustrate how fucked up this is, in the eyes of the civilized world and ALL OF THE GUN YOKELS on this site go ballistic.
Case closed.

Americans love their guns more than their own children.

Michigangoof, Draugnar, krellin, Gunfighter et al are guilty of murdering children.

"MichiganMan, Draugnar, krellin, Gunfighter et al are guilty of murdering children."

Your sense of causation is off dude. But, if it help you feel self righteous by saying such illogical and delusional things, then by all means, blather away my good man, blather away!

Besides, the ONLY poster I see "going ballistic" is YOU Mapleleaf. I think the people who chose Newtown as a spot to rally were in sensitive. But, that has nothing to do with my overall stands on private gun ownership.

No doubt. If an epidemic of murdered children doesn't change your stance on private gun ownership, then the actions of a bunch of yokels who SHARE YOUR BELIEFS certainly won't. You're a stupid child murdering american cunt.

Is yokel an offensive word in Canada or something? I get that your trying to be as insulting as possible, but yokel? Over and over again? You sound like a 19th century hillbilly. Tarnation jethrow, get a load of those yokels over yonder!

That's what the ENTIRE WORLD thinks of americans. A bunch of gun toting hillbillies.

Suddenly I've lost respect for the world.

@fufo,

" but where is the use of having guns?

i have never heard of a case where armed civilians stopped a massacre in a school or something... "

Here. It would be nicer if links were provided from this page, but you can easily google the incidents that are mentioned for confirmation (except I don't know where the 2500 number came from).

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20130115/NJOPINION0202/301150005/Guns-can-help-stop-crimes-too

So, why do you suppose you've never heard of such things?

Hey hey hey stop with this Canada-USA hate thing.
Does everyone know the words to Imagine, I have a guitar and can feel a song coming on.
Let's all hug, after the sing-song we can pray.

@Mapleleaf,

Again...YOU seem to be going ballistic, not any of your adversaries in this debate.

First of all, there is no "epidemic of murdered children" and second of all, if there were, it would only STRENGTHEN my stance on private gun ownership. You seem to think that by making ALL gun ownership (except for the police/government, of course) illegal and impossible that this "epidemic" (which statistics don't bear out) would subside. Yet, the most recent mass shootings have occurred in places where the gun laws are MOST RESTRICTIVE -- shouldn't it be the opposite by you logic?

1000's of children die every year in motor vehicle accidents, I drive a car, am I therefore a child murderer? Children all over the nation tragically drown in swimming pools, I take my children swimming, am I therefore a child murderer? Your logic is flawed yet you have the nerve to call ME stupid?!?

I would love to have this debate face to face, and see if you obvous rage, hated, and insults kept up at the same emboldened pace.

Just as a general point because I'm interested in what you have to say about this - you seem to only be thinking of the US. There are many countries where gun laws are extremely restrictive (more so than pretty much anywhere in the US) which do not have frequent or even infrequent mass shootings. Does that not support the correlation?