Canadian vs. American Constitution

In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the superiors or the overruling and place it into the palms of the people. As seen through examples our western law (canadian law) has slowly branched off from the supremacy of God (mosaic law), to the supremacy of the monarchy (bristish law), finally to a realization of the importance of citizen participation in the creating, governing, and administrating of the laws (Greek law).

The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.

In this paper I will be discussing the various differences and similarities between the Canadian and Egyptian constitutions. There are many differences among both of these constitutions but I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of similarities I found during my research. The Canadian and Egyptian constitutions are similar in terms of basic human rights and freedoms. They are different in terms of the actually content, as the Egyptian constitution contains more articles compared to the Canadian constitution.

The dual court system permits the federal administration restricted access into each jurisdiction problems and state law is not allowed to be involved in the federal judicial system, without there being some type of encounter at the state or federal stages. Federal courts have the authority to resolve only the cases in which the Constitution allows them to have power over. These types of courts are to be found in the bigger only; specific cases are allowed to be received within the federal courts. For instances, the cases that are allowed to be viewed in the federal courts are cases that include the United States government and other officers that are being sued. The dual court system is not the only part of the story, each level there is a different court chain of command. States often have limited jurisdiction courts, such as traffic courts, trial courts and appellate courts, and supreme courts (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). Each trial court adjudicates different offenses. Appellate courts consider different matters depending on where they lie in the court hierarchy. Appeals from state courts can sometimes be heard in the federal courts. Higher-level courts can control the actions and decisions of lower courts, but not the other way around. Despite the apparent complexity, each court has its place. The main focus of the court system is to uphold the law, protect citizens and their rights and resolving

There are higher courts assuring that the judges follow the law at all times. The Canadian Charter of rights gives us our rights and freedoms so people will have their rights protected while in court. A part of democracy is everyone having their rights and this advantage of an independent justice system ensures citizens that they will have them. The rights of the people need to be protected and with higher courts ensuring that they are creating an equal and secure justice system. People will not be afraid to go to court or unsure if their rights apply during the trial. The promise of rights and freedoms is not a threat to democracy, especially if it is helpful and provides for each citizen across Canada. In fact, it also forces judges to be under a law since they are people too. They are not the law, they just enforce it and this rule guarantees that a judge cannot just do whatever they feel like doing and give out unfair sentences or wrong decisions. This provides Canada with a democracy and no threat towards

A large difference between the Canadian and American Criminal Justice System is that in Canada, all first-time judges no matter what level of court have to be lawyers and had to have been for at least five years, although virtually all appointments come from lawyers who have at least 10 years of experience(Choosing Judges in Canada, 2010) the judges are appointed by the federal or provincial government, superior court judges are appointed by the federal government meanwhile the inferior courts; which are all courts that are not the superior court, are appointed by the provincial government. “In many American jurisdictions justices and judges are elected to their positions, they must meet certain basic requirements, including citizenship and residency” (How judges are elected).

The necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

However in the United States we have what is referred to as a dual court system. A dual court system can be defined as a judicial system comprising federal- and state- level judicial systems. A dual court system separates federal and state courts. According to the book a dual court system is advantageous and desirable because it is parallel to federalism. Federalism is a system of government where power is constitutionally divided between central governing body and various constituent units. In the United States, the federal government makes laws, but federalism also gives the state’s power to make their own laws (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). The Founding fathers saw it as a way to serve as check on an abusive or tyrannical government.

The Canadian jurisdiction has four levels of courts, except Nunavut, that allocates with criminal cases. The levels of courts are; provincial and territorial courts, provincial and territorial superior courts, provincial and territorial courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

“Our primary concern right now – my primary concern – is the stability of our financial system, the orderliness of the markets, and that’s where our focus is.”3 – Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury

The American legal system consists of two separate levels of court, defined as federalism, which together administer and enforce the laws in the United States. Federalism distributes the government powers between both the federal governments and the state governments, which ensures that the power of the national government is decentralized.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.