Canadian Federalism, and the Foreign Affairs and Treaty Power. The Impact of Quebec’s “Quiet Revolution”

Author(s):  
Edward McWhinney

The succeeding discussion looks at some of the concrete record of governmental practice (whether provincial or federal) in Canada, under the impact of the “Quiet Revolution” in Quebec, in important areas of foreign affairs and trans-national cultural, social, and commercial relations generally. Its thesis will be, first, that at the level of constitutional law-in-action important changes and modifications are occurring in Canada which largely render out-of-date certain traditional a priori concepts and attitudes as to inter-governmental relations within a federal system; second, that these de facto changes, which are already ripening through sustained practice and observance into conventional constitutional law, tend to present the Privy Council’s work on the Canadian constitution and its interpretation in a new and rather more favourable light (in comparison perhaps with the record of the Canadian Supreme Court); and, third, that the constitutional changes that have, in fact, occurred in this area make good sense in pragmatic, experiential terms, having regard to the inner dynamics of Canadian federalism today and to the aspirations of the main contending power groups, the new positive law of the constitution thus coming very close to being also community “living law” in Canada.

Author(s):  
Gaudreault-DesBiens Jean-François ◽  
Poirier et Johanne

This chapter documents the evolution from a dualist—“watertight compartments”—conception of Canadian federalism, to one that must acknowledge an increased number of intergovernmental cooperative ventures. It first examines Canada’s fundamentally dualist federal architecture before looking at the empirical reality of cooperative federalism which frequently challenges this structural dualism. It then considers how the rise of cooperative federalism influenced the evolution of the interpretive doctrines underpinning the law of Canadian federalism. Finally, it analyses the normative strength and scope of cooperative federalism, concluding that the impact of cooperative federalism in Canadian constitutional law remains tamed by the dualist conception of federalism that still underlies the Supreme Court of Canada’s federalism case law.


Federalism-E ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-53
Author(s):  
Darcy Drury

The problem with Lord Acton’s state-ment is that it leaves out the third essential ingredient to a federal system of government: a supreme court. In Canada, like most federa-tions, the Supreme Court (SC) is responsible for articulating the constitution and serving as an independent mediator in intergovernmen-tal relations. Each decision made by the SC in regards to government jurisdiction changes the dynamics of Canadian federalism, and some critics fear it can be used as a centraliz-ing device by the federal government. This paper will discuss the nature of the SC by demonstrating its necessity, purpose, and the importance of its independence by examining its crucial role in Canadian federalism. Next, there will be a historical breakdown of the impact of2 the SC on the federal balance of powers through an examination of three es-sential eras: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (decentralizing), Laskin (centralizing), and Charter (mixed), with analysis involving the attitudinal and legal theorist models of decision making in SC decisions. Finally, the SC’s impartiality towards provincial and feder-al preferences will be evaluated to show that justices have remained immune to direct po-litical pressures [...]


Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe

This book examines the impact of Supreme Court cases from Texas on the entire nation. It argues that the most important Supreme Court cases have originated in Texas, which help explain why it is Texas and not California that provides breadth and depth to constitutional adjudication. Texas litigants, lawyers, politicians, and judges all play important roles in the underlying interplay of law and politics at the local, state, and national levels. In all its facets, Texas offers a window to all constitutional law and the Supreme Court. The book shows that Texas's impact literally started at the beginning by precipitating a debate over national powers and then a war with Mexico, and that the fraught relationship between Texas, the nation, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court in the century and a half since Texas v. White has produced more constitutional law than any other state.


Federalism-E ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Goldlist

The role of the Supreme Court in the practice of Canadian federalism, specifically the extent of its power and the effects of that power, is a hotly contested issue in Canadian political science. While some scholars have argued that the Court has taken on too political of a role that must be restricted, this paper develops the Court as a constitutional ‘umpire,’ whose rulings serve the important, but limited, functions of allocating political resources to incentivize negotiation, and establishing jurisdictional boundaries for said negotiations, leaving specific policy decisions to political, as opposed to legal, actors. Concerning the net outcome of the Court’s jurisprudence on the distribution of legislative powers, this paper illustrates the Court’s overall balancing approach, with grants of power to one level of government met with increases in authority to the other, in all major policy areas. Thus, ultimately shown to embrace both a limited and impartial approach to constitutional adjudication, the Court has done much to enhance its democratic legitimacy and constitutional utility.


Author(s):  
Leclair Jean

In Reference Re Secession of Quebec, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the unwritten constitutional principles of federalism and democracy dictated that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province gave rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to the federation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire. To understand this astonishing decision, the author first examines how, over time, in Canada and Quebec, issues of identity(ies), constitutional law, and democracy came to be formulated in absolutist terms, making political compromises next to impossible. Only then does he analyse the Supreme Court’s decision and attempts to explain why the latter chose to decide as it did.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snehil Kunwar Singh

Abstract Recent judgements of the Supreme Court of India have done away with presumption of constitutionality for pre-constitutional laws in India. Regarded as one of the core principles in the study of interpretation of statutes, presumption of constitutionality assumes great significance when constitutionality of any law is under challenge. Removal of this presumption for pre-constitutional laws has far-reaching potential on judicial scrutiny of vires of pre-constitutional laws. However, the implications of such removal on pre-constitutional laws have not been studied. This article is an attempt to study such implications. I shall take example of Indian law on sedition, which is a pre-constitutional law, to demonstrate the impact of removal of the presumption.


2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 237-246
Author(s):  
Gil Rémillard

The notion of sovereignty is the most fundamental concept of public law. At the same time, it is one of the main difficulties federalism has to face. Where does sovereignty reside in a federal state ? While this question is not an easy one to answer, knowledge of the manner in which it has been answered in Canadian constitutional law is essential to an understanding of the present constitutional crisis. The most appropriate definition of sovereignty is « jurisdiction to define jurisdictions ». This definition implies the concept of an ultimate authority and its application to a federal system is of great difficulty. Two main theories confront each other. The first one develops the concept that sovereignty should be shared between the federal government and the federated states. The second sees sovereignty as belonging exclusively to the federal government, regional governments merely enjoying some form of autonomy. This paper studies the implications of both theories in Canadian federalism.


1959 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 777-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank J. Sorauf

It has become a commonplace that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Scholars of American constitutional law have, therefore, focused their studies largely on the Court's opinions as indices of the Constitution's current meaning. But however well established may be the Court's role as the expounder of the constitutional document, the impact of a decision will depend on many individuals and circumstances far beyond the confines of the Court. This paper will examine the effects of the decision in Zorach v. Clauson on public policy in the seven years since its announcement. It will attempt to follow the repercussions of one Supreme Court decision through the entire political process within one area of political conflict—in this case the conflict over church-state relationships.


1990 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Manfredi

AbstractThe adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has generated considerable interest among legal commentators who question the potential impact of United States civil rights jurisprudence on Charter adjudication. This article offers a preliminary analysis of the impact of US constitutional law generally, and civil rights jurisprudence in particular, on Charter adjudication in the Supreme Court of Canada between 1984 and 1988. Focussing on the Supreme Court's citations of US decisions, the study finds that the frequency of such citations has increased under the Charter. Moreover, the Court's use of these decisions has had a significant substantive impact in defining the nature of constitutional interpretation and the content of the Charter's legal rights.


Author(s):  
Jocelyn Stacey

Abstract This analysis considers the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11, in which a majority of the Court upheld as constitutional national carbon pricing legislation. The decision presents an excellent illustration of the legally-disruptive nature of climate change. Illustrating that nothing is static in a climate disrupted world—including constitutional law—this article identifies three shifts the Court makes in relation to climate disruption. First, the decision represents a shift away from climate denialism towards a judicial willingness to confront the environmental, social and legal implications of climate change for Canada. Second, the majority embraces and perhaps strengthens a ‘culture of justification’ in climate decision-making. Third—and more tentatively—the majority moves beyond the erasure of Indigenous peoples from Canadian federalism but still yet fails to engage with Indigenous laws and jurisdiction as part of Canada’s constitutional response to climate change.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document