In Defence of Macdonald\u27s Constitution

To-night I propose to sing the praises of the Canadian Constitution of 1867. I call it Macdonald\u27s Constitution for two reasons. The first is that, though of course it was the work of all the Fathers of Confederation, Macdonald, incontestably, was the chief architect. The second is that what I am concerned to defend is the basic document Macdonald left us: Macdonald\u27s Constitution as distinct from Haldane\u27s; Macdonald\u27s Constitution before it was defaced and ravaged by the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council; before it was distorted by those wicked Stepfathers of Confederation. Does it need defence? Yes. Against what? Against the demands voiced, notably, by the recent Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, for a new Constitution , a fundamental recasting , a Constitution rethought and reformulated in terms that are meaningful to Canadians now. \u27 And why are we supposed to need this new Constitution? First, because the Constitution of 1867 (which, despite the Watsons and the Haldanes, remains the basis of our present Constitution) is not distinctively Canadian ;2 because it was imposed by British overlords , 3 or granted by a colonial power , 4 or because the Fathers were thinking as colonials .

In Defence of Macdonald\u27s Constitution

To-night I propose to sing the praises of the Canadian Constitution of 1867. I call it Macdonald\u27s Constitution for two reasons. The first is that, though of course it was the work of all the Fathers of Confederation, Macdonald, incontestably, was the chief architect. The second is that what I am concerned to defend is the basic document Macdonald left us: Macdonald\u27s Constitution as distinct from Haldane\u27s; Macdonald\u27s Constitution before it was defaced and ravaged by the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council; before it was distorted by those wicked Stepfathers of Confederation. Does it need defence? Yes. Against what? Against the demands voiced, notably, by the recent Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, for a new Constitution , a fundamental recasting , a Constitution rethought and reformulated in terms that are meaningful to Canadians now. \u27 And why are we supposed to need this new Constitution? First, because the Constitution of 1867 (which, despite the Watsons and the Haldanes, remains the basis of our present Constitution) is not distinctively Canadian ;2 because it was imposed by British overlords , 3 or granted by a colonial power , 4 or because the Fathers were thinking as colonials .

The Courts and the Conventions of the Constitution

This article addresses the somewhat evasive topic of conventions. In the first part of the article, the author discusses conventions in a very general way as part of our "working Constitution of Canada". In so doing, he considers such questions as: What constitutes a convention?; How does it change?; and, In what circumstances does it change? Numerous examples of conventions are presented and examined. The second part of the article is more specifically concerned with the relationship between the courts and these conventions. Particular emphasis is placed on the patriation reference of 1982 to the Supreme Court of Canada. The author concludes by assessing the appropriate role of the courts with respect to matters of convention.Cet étude adressera le sujet quelque peu évasif des conventions. En premier lieu, l'auteur donnera au apercu général des conventions en rapport avec le rôle de la Constitution du Canada dans notre vie quotidienne. Entre autres, l'auteur discutera les questions suivants: Quelle est une convention?; Comment peut-on modifier une convention?; Dans quelles circonstances est-ce qu'une convention change? L'etude présentera et examinera plusieurs exemples de conventions. En deuxième lieu, l'auteur démontrera la relation qui existe entre les Cours et les conventions et, en particulier, il attirera l'attention sur la référence de patriation à la Cour Suprême du Canada en 1982. Finalement, l'étude évaluera le rôle des Cours le plus approprié en rapport aux affaires des convention

In Defence of Macdonald\u27s Constitution

To-night I propose to sing the praises of the Canadian Constitution of 1867. I call it Macdonald\u27s Constitution for two reasons. The first is that, though of course it was the work of all the Fathers of Confederation, Macdonald, incontestably, was the chief architect. The second is that what I am concerned to defend is the basic document Macdonald left us: Macdonald\u27s Constitution as distinct from Haldane\u27s; Macdonald\u27s Constitution before it was defaced and ravaged by the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council; before it was distorted by those wicked Stepfathers of Confederation. Does it need defence? Yes. Against what? Against the demands voiced, notably, by the recent Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, for a new Constitution , a fundamental recasting , a Constitution rethought and reformulated in terms that are meaningful to Canadians now. \u27 And why are we supposed to need this new Constitution? First, because the Constitution of 1867 (which, despite the Watsons and the Haldanes, remains the basis of our present Constitution) is not distinctively Canadian ;2 because it was imposed by British overlords , 3 or granted by a colonial power , 4 or because the Fathers were thinking as colonials .

In Defence of Macdonald\u27s Constitution

To-night I propose to sing the praises of the Canadian Constitution of 1867. I call it Macdonald\u27s Constitution for two reasons. The first is that, though of course it was the work of all the Fathers of Confederation, Macdonald, incontestably, was the chief architect. The second is that what I am concerned to defend is the basic document Macdonald left us: Macdonald\u27s Constitution as distinct from Haldane\u27s; Macdonald\u27s Constitution before it was defaced and ravaged by the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council; before it was distorted by those wicked Stepfathers of Confederation. Does it need defence? Yes. Against what? Against the demands voiced, notably, by the recent Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, for a new Constitution , a fundamental recasting , a Constitution rethought and reformulated in terms that are meaningful to Canadians now. \u27 And why are we supposed to need this new Constitution? First, because the Constitution of 1867 (which, despite the Watsons and the Haldanes, remains the basis of our present Constitution) is not distinctively Canadian ;2 because it was imposed by British overlords , 3 or granted by a colonial power , 4 or because the Fathers were thinking as colonials .

In Defence of Macdonald\u27s Constitution

To-night I propose to sing the praises of the Canadian Constitution of 1867. I call it Macdonald\u27s Constitution for two reasons. The first is that, though of course it was the work of all the Fathers of Confederation, Macdonald, incontestably, was the chief architect. The second is that what I am concerned to defend is the basic document Macdonald left us: Macdonald\u27s Constitution as distinct from Haldane\u27s; Macdonald\u27s Constitution before it was defaced and ravaged by the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council; before it was distorted by those wicked Stepfathers of Confederation. Does it need defence? Yes. Against what? Against the demands voiced, notably, by the recent Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, for a new Constitution , a fundamental recasting , a Constitution rethought and reformulated in terms that are meaningful to Canadians now. \u27 And why are we supposed to need this new Constitution? First, because the Constitution of 1867 (which, despite the Watsons and the Haldanes, remains the basis of our present Constitution) is not distinctively Canadian ;2 because it was imposed by British overlords , 3 or granted by a colonial power , 4 or because the Fathers were thinking as colonials .

The royal power of dissolution of Parliament in the British Commonwealth.

In the first place, the thesis has collected, summarized and examined a large number of cases of grant and refusal of dissolution, especially in the overseas Empire, which seem never to have been recorded before except in the original official documents. Second, it has done the same for a considerable number of discussions of hypothetical cases of dissolution in the United Kingdom. Third, it presents the first complete and accurate record, and the most thorough critical analysis which has yet appeared, of the highly important Canadian crisis of 1926 (including the very interesting, though by no means unprecedented, temporary Government of Ministers without portfolio). Fourth, it subjects the pronouncements of statesmen and text-writers on the subject of dissolution of Parliament to rigorous criticism, in the light of the basic principles of the British parliamentary system. Fifth, it argues that a proper and resolute exercise of the Crown's reserve power in regard to dissolution of Parliament is an essential safeguard of constitutional liberty. [...