-Caveat Lector-
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: No Canada
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:52:49 -0600
From: The Republican <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopelprint122000.html
12/20/00 10:35 a.m.
No Canada
Why America would follow Canada's political lead is mind boggling.
By Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant, & Dr. Joanne Eisen of the Independence
Institute
The Electoral College is an important part of the checks and balances built
into our Constitution, and is now under siege precisely because of its role
in checking centralized power.
The American Founders foresaw the dangers of large urban centers being able
to overwhelm the smaller states. For this reason, each state is represented
by two Senators, regardless of the state's population. That Wyoming and New
York each have two Senators is inconsistent with "one-man-one-vote," but
fully consistent with protecting Wyoming from being bullied by a federal
government run on New York values.
Similarly, each state's representation in the Electoral College is
determined by the sum of the Senate and House seats, thereby giving extra
clout to small states. This keeps the presidential race from focusing
entirely on urban population centers. The fact that states vote as states
helps maintain state governments as independent centers of power.
Americans - who have largely been ignorant of the national election held in
Canada on November 27 - should look to the Canadian political system for
the poignant lesson it provides on the value of checks and balances to
protect minorities and to discourage centralization. In Canada, power is
concentrated in the central government in Ottawa. The House of Commons,
like the U.S. House of Representatives, is elected from districts
approximately equal in population. Thus, Members of Parliament from the two
most populous provinces - Ontario and Quebec - far outnumber the MPs from
all other provinces. While American senators are elected two-per-state,
Canadian senators are appointed by the head of the national government.
Dennis Young, assistant to Saskatchewan's Member of Parliament Garry
Breitkreuz, explained:
Our Senate was supposed to protect the interests of the underpopulated
provinces of the country but was flawed from the outset. Senators are
appointed solely by the Prime Minister. The Senate has enough power to
provide provincial or regional balance to the representation by population
in the House of Commons, but it doesn't use the power because, in the end,
they owe their positions to the Prime Minister who appointed them.
If Senators from the western or maritime provinces were loyal to their home
provinces, rather than to the prime minister who appointed them, they would
still have difficulty in stopping centralization. Ontario and Quebec have
24 senators each. Most of the other provinces have only six.
Prof. Gary Mauser, of Simon Fraser University (in British Columbia),
explains that Canada's parliamentary form of government contains no checks
and balances on power: "Majority control of Parliament combines the
executive and legislative branches of government."
Furthermore, the prime minister appoints all Supreme Court justices without
any requirement that he consult with, or receive consent from, any other
governmental body.
So while America has three genuinely independent branches of federal
government (and a legislative branch divided into two independent parts),
Canada has no meaningful separation of powers. The head of one part of the
legislative branch (the prime minister) controls the executive branch, the
Supreme Court, and the Senate. There is no meaningful check on the power of
a single man to impose his will on the entire nation.
The Canadian system drastically simplifies the problem of passing
controversial national legislation. For example, a previous Liberal
administration abolished capital punishment, clearly against the will of
the people.
In 1995, Prime Minister Jean Chretien demanded and got the Firearms Act, a
national system of firearm registration and licensing. The Firearms Act has
been bitterly contested from its inception, especially by gun owners in the
western provinces.
The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have
announced their refusal to administer not only the new federal gun control
laws, but also the 66-year-old handgun registry. They further refused to
prosecute offenders, and threw the whole matter back into Ottawa's lap.
The gun-rights issue helped Canada's main opposition party, the Alliance,
in the Western and Maritime provinces; but by sweeping Ontario and picking
up scattered districts elsewhere, Chretien's Liberal party returned to
power. Of course Chretien had an advantage enjoyed by no American
president: the ability to choose the date of the next election.
The concentration of power in any central government is dangerous. If
Americans had Canada's government structure, we'd have far more than the
22,000 gun regulations already on our books. Essentially, if the president
wanted severe gun control or prohibition, that's what we'd get.
How far Bill Clinton - or Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, and Franklin
Roosevelt - would have gone if they didn't have to convince two independent
bodies of Congress can't be estimated for certain. But it's likely that the
Second Amendment would be a thing of the past by now. As in Canada, the
right to own firearms for lawful protection would be abolished, with
hunters allowed an increasingly constricted "privilege" to own
government-approved rifles and shotguns for hunting. That Americans
overwhelmingly support the right to self-defense would have made no more
difference than the fact that the majority of Canadians today support the
right of self-defense.
Austrian economist Friedrich August von Hayek noted this half a century ago:
Power has an inherent tendency to expand and where there are no effective
limitations it will grow without bounds, whether it is exercised in the
name of the people or in the name of a few. Indeed, there is reason to fear
that unlimited power in the hands of the people [i.e. majority rule] will
grow farther and be even more pernicious in its effects than power
exercised by few.
This was precisely the point made by James Madison in Federalist, number 10:
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular
government enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both
the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good
and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same
time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the
great object to which our inquiries are directed.
Yes, there are dangers when a centralized government goes against the
wishes of the people (as the Canadian government did on self-defense). But
the greater danger is when a government has majority popular support, and
can act without respect for the rights of minorities.
Today, Canada is a country steeped in socialism. Typical of socialist
societies, its government provides - or at least promises - goodies like
"free" universal national health care. But the abject failure and myths of
socialized medicine are quickly exposed by the number of Canadians who
flock to the U.S. each year to obtain the medical services they can't
obtain at home, or who must wait so long that delivery of those services is
tantamount to denial. Complained Sara Oster, a 26-year old post-graduate
student at the University of Toronto, "I shouldn't be waiting a year to
receive an MRI."
It is a simple fact that no country can provide top-notch, free universal
health care without bankrupting itself sooner or later.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien was swept into an unprecedented third term by
the lure of billions of dollars he promised Canadians to fix their
country's medical system. According to Canadian papers, "healthcare [was]
the most vigorously debated issue in this election, and it [was] the one
that took the forefront at both the English and French leader debates."
Never mind that it was Chretien who created Canada's national health care
crisis in the first place by cutting funding from it. But instead of
telling Canadians the truth - that no government can provide a "free"
medical system - Chretien promised billions of dollars to "fix" theirs.
And never mind that Canada's "excellent" compassionate universal health
care is so bankrupt that it even denies women anesthesia during childbirth.
As Canada's majority-approved destruction of the health care system shows,
you can fool most of the people some of the time. That's why purely
majoritarian political systems like Canada's, which impose no internal
checks and balances on the majority party, are so likely to lead a country
to disaster. Why, in one of the richest countries in the world, should
women be denied pain medication during childbirth?
Which brings us back to the Electoral College. Like a Senate chosen by
states, like a system of government with three genuinely independent
branches, the Electoral College is part of a broader constitutional system
to ensure that a gullible plurality of the electorate - especially a
majority centered in a few urban areas (such as the megapolitan clusters of
counties carried by Gore) - won't necessarily be able to take the country
down the rights-constricting, government-expanding path of Canada.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Senator-elect Hillary Clinton
would waste no time in proposing legislation that calls for a
Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. It's just a
natural progression of the Clinton-Gore administration's attempts during
the last 8 years to dismantle the Constitution in every way possible.
If you'd like to live in a country where it's against the law to protect
your family from a violent home invader, and where you get "free" health
care of lower quality than what a pet receives in the United States, and if
you think the American Founders were fools for wanting to prevent the
concentration of political power, then by all means try to get rid of the
Electoral College.
[Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not
Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]
------------------------------
A.K. Pritchard
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/
http://rosie.acmecity.com/songfest/189/
To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a
lot better than what the government is using these
days." --anon
>From Mark E. Howerter's Web Page
"The Other Side of the News"
http://www.otherside.net/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
