Liberal Party Research Paper

Members of the government all take part in drafting legislation. Afterwards, the committee markup sessions begin (the congressional committee rewrites legislation to incorporate changes discussed during hearings on the bill). Then it’s the close rule; in this step, the house committee limits the introduction of amendments during the debate. The group of people who are not for the amendment would go for the open rule which is the house committee that permits floor debate and addition of new amendments). The final step of a law being passed is being vetoed or approved by the

The movement of Quebec sovereignty, if it were to be implemented, would have substantial consequences, not only on Quebec but also on Canada as a whole. For this reason, the movement should be challenged. It is ironic how much of Quebec advocates for independence, yet the effects would be economically detrimental. If Quebec succeeded in being granted independence, it “would need to negotiate with the rest of Canada about assuming its share of federal debt” (Ragan, Christopher). This additional debt, which would equate approximately to 154 billion dollars, would be equal to 92 percent of the province’s gross domestic product (Ragan, Christopher). Undoubtedly, this would shake Quebec’s fiscal stability. There is also the possibility of Quebec

In 1980, he and his party, Parti Quebecois, called a referendum on the topic of Quebec sovereignty. He asked the Quebecois to present his government with a mandate to negotiate with Canada for a new agreement based on sovereignty-association. This meant that Quebec would become independent from Canada politically but stay closely associated with Canada economically. The partnership would mean free trade between Quebec and Canada; both nations would have the same currency and both would have the same tariffs on imported goods. Prime Minister Trudeau promised the negotiation of a new constitution that would recognize Quebec as a distinct society in Canada and an equal partner in confederation. Then, during the referendum, only 40% of the Quebecois actually voted for sovereignty-association. This referendum caused a rift between the people in Quebec because it led to Trudeau making an opposing argument that split Quebecois opinions. They remained divided on the issue as shown by the close vote for the referendum, which shows the separation in views. Additionally, the referendum not only caused tensions among fellow Quebecois, but also between the Quebecois and English Canadians. Quebec was trying to separate from Canada in order to distance itself from other Canadian cultures and preserve its own. So the fact that

Many modern democracies have a bicameral legislature which is a body of government that consist of two legislative chambers. The bicameral legislature provides representation for both, the citizens of the country and the state legislature on a federal level. The Canadian parliament has two chambers, the lower chamber which is an elected House of Commons and the upper chamber which is the non-elected Senate. The Canadian Senate is assumed to be a “sober second thought” [3] on government legislation which is a phrase that describes the Senate’s role in promoting and defending regional interest. There has been an immense amount of the public outcry regarding the Senate after spending scandal that occurred during the recent election period. A question that has induced discussion in parliament is whether the Canadian Senate should be reformed or not? This issue divides the population in half because of differing views. Some political parties want the abolition of the Senate to occur while other parties would like to have an elected Senate because provinces are not represented equally. A method of deciding the faith of the current Senate, the functions of the Senate and objectives of Senate reform should be defined. The assumptions about the purpose of the Senate, problems of the current Senate, the goal of Senate reform and the method of achieving the reform may help provide a consensus on how the Senate should be reformed.

Justin Trudeau spoke to the political risks of this charter; he says that the PQ has miscalculated her expectations of what Quebecers will respond to. It is a significant factor in the process, some people may comply with this secular change and some will fight back against the

Once the bill reaches its date, the members initiate a debate regarding the proposed legislation (“The Legislative Process,” 2014). At this time, amendments may be approved and the bill is voted on by the members. If the bill is passed, it is referred to the other chamber and undergoes the same process. If the bill is accepted by both the House and Senate, it is sent to the President. The President has the option to approve or veto the bill. If signed by the President, it becomes law. Congress may try to override the President’s veto by two thirds vote of the members (“The Legislative Process,” 2014).

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

America following Reconstruction was completely different from America during FDR's New Deal. In 1876, the government was based on the ideas of Laissez-faire which meant that government stayed out of the citizens' lives. Society in 1876 was dominated by white men who ran the country while there were no rights for women, blacks, and immigrants. In 1876, Americans lived on farms in rural America. By the 1930's, America was a welfare state with government just starting to control different aspects such as economy and corporations. In the 1930's women, blacks, and immigrants all had the right to vote, and the majority of Americans were living in cities. Blacks had the right to vote; however, they were usually disenfranchised by whites.

Now that you are up to date with currents events I will briefly touch on some strong point of the Canadian democratic system. Citizens in Canada indirectly hold power in a free electoral system and are given better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than other systems of government. The freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and the freedom of the media allow citizens to vote in favour of their own interest. Democracy in Canada is rooted on the grounds of equal rights; this gives people equality before the law, human rights, free and fair elections and so on. In comparison to the Third World, power is in the hands of the “Big Men”, the police and army are the ones who hold control not the people and where corruption is a norm, Canada may look like a utopia. Another strong point in the Canadian political system is everyone no matter race or sex has the right to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen over the age of eighteen. Until the 60s/70s parties would make up electoral boundaries this was done to increase the number of votes in that location this is called gerrymander, this was unfair because certain parties had an advantage over others. However, now under the Electoral Boundaries Commissions this problem does not occur and no party has the upper hand over another. Interestingly the

If the Senate is kept at its current state, it will continue to operate fine, however the Senate can be much more effective at what it does if it gets amended. Currently the Senate is not elected, equal, nor efficient. People who comprise the Senate are selected by the governor general on the advice of the Prime Minister, so those selected most likely will act in good intention towards the Prime Minister. The Senate, unlike the House was designed to represent Canada’s regions, however it over-represents some provinces at the expense of others. For example currently, Quebec and Ontario each have 24 seats, the same amount of seats as the four Western provinces as a whole. Atlantic Canada, with a mere 7% of the population, holds a unproportional 29% of the seats. Canadians deserve laws that are fair and free of errors, and the Senate contributes to that. The Senate’s job is to foster national unity, however currently they act in the interest of themselves and the Prime Minister rather than in the interest of the people.

Various actions can occur once a bill passes through the first house and awaits approval by the second. The course materials point out that if one chamber passes the bill the other may: pass the bill as it stands, send the bill to a committee, reject the bill, or ignore the bill (Unit 3 the Congress, 11). If referred to a committee, that committee would: examine the bill, change the bill, or both. If rejected, the rejecting chamber will apprise the other chamber of its act. If ignored, the ignoring chamber would press forward with its work on that chamber’s particular version of the bill.

he United States IS a Constitutional Republic. It limits the power of the government NOT expand it. Do any of the Liberal Left Wing Democrats understand this? Left Wing by its definition is a movement to change the United States to be a nation of Socialists, Communists and Demagogues. This is what I have been trying to explain throughout my Rudy Rant messages, but the Left is so brainwashed and ignorant of our history and our founding that they get apoplectic when they cannot get their way. Proof? Look at the demonstrations. Look at the Left Wing Media using terms like Racist, Misogynist, and Islamophobia. Look at the likes of George Soros, Al Sharpton and others on the Left encouraging and financially supporting riots because their attempt at radically changing the American Dream is falling apart. Let’s look at the American Dream.

<br>At this moment, the bill has been permitted by both the Senate and the House, therefore members of both houses meet to revise the bill to be placed on the President's desk. A conference committee made up of members of both houses works out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The modified bill is then sent back to both houses for their final approval. Then the bill is printed by the government printing office in a process called enrolling. The clerk of the house of congress that originated the bill certifies the final version. Afterwards, the Speaker of the House signs the enrolled bill, and then the Vice President signs it. Finally, Congress sends the proposed new legislation to the White House for consideration by the President. The President then has three choices: approval, veto, or no action. If the President decides to approve the bill, all that is necessary is that he or she signs, dates and sometimes write approved on it. If the President decides to veto, the bill must be sent back to congress with an explanation of the objections. The bill is then reconsidered and if two-thirds of those members present approve the vetoed

The revised bill then must go back to the floors of each house and be passed by both houses before it can be sent to the President for signing. Finally, the bill is given to the commander and chief, Mr. President. The president role in passing a bill into law includes but in not limited to review the law for equally, verbiage and unfortunally, if it meets his political goals. If Congress is sitting to the left while the President views or more towards the right, the president is more likely to veto the bill. A veto is just a legal term meaning to return or send back. However, if the resubmission doesn’t get approved, with a 2/3 majority the bill can be put into law without presidential approval. The Presidents may also issue a proclamation, often ceremonial in nature or issue an executive order. In conclusion, the Founding Father implemented a system that including checks and balances. The process of a bill passing into a law is a very long and tedious journey. In my professional opinion, the process is a bit out dated and should be reformed. The political parties that is Congress should remain 50/50 while publically announcing all law on major television and radio

Now that the bill has been passed through the House, it is ready to go through the proceedings of the Senate. First, the bill is again introduced but now by a senator who must be recognized by the presiding officer and announce the introduction of the bill. A bill that has passed either house of congress is sometimes called an act, but the term usually means legislation that has passed both houses and become a law. Secondly, the Vice President of the US, who is the presiding officer of the Senate, assigns the proposed law to a committee for further study ( the Senate has about 15 standing committees). The committees or one of its subcommittees studies the bill and may hold hearings. The committee may approve the bill as is, revise the bill, or table the bill. Now the bill goes to the Senate to await its turn on the Senate floor. Normally the bill is considered as introduced unless the bill is urgent in which case the leaders of the majority party might push it ahead. At this time the Senate considers the bill. Here senators can debate a bill indefinitely, unless voted otherwise. When there is no further discussion, the Senate votes. Most bills must have simple majority to pass. At this point of development, the process is especially exemplary because the bill in the Senate is now considered by debate to better illustrate its strengths and/or weaknesses. To summarize, the bill has now been passed by both houses of congress.