I guess someone else must have posted the second quote under your username.

In any event, it's an unwarranted conflation of "uniform" with "equitable". We have somewhat different law in different states. Everybody should know what the law is where they live or travel. If you don't belive in capital punishment, I suggest you not commit murder in Virginia. Or Pennsylvania.

If the law is inequitably *applied*, there is usually grounds for a Federal appeal under the equal protection clause.

The principle applied in the design of the U.S constitution is that there's an advantage to dealing internationally--especially in matters of trade and defense--as a single unit...yet it's *not* wise to concentrate that much internal power in a central management, when power and control can be distributed and decentralized.

This is a lesson the Soviets learned. I kind of suspect the EU will learn it over the next 50 years or so...some of the "uniformity" we're seeing come out of *that* "great experiment" (to borrow from de Tocqueville) leaves me wondering.
Um, you mean the "Constitution of the United States", right? I'd hate to think you took that annexation--er, I mean *merger* --hypothetical too seriously. Even though as eager as you are to debate, you didn't actually respond. I thought it would be interesting to frame a question that would involve your own self-interest. But then maybe you only want to debate about other people's laws

Your questioning my standing to speak in the plural about my country, its people and our government just led me to point out your own much weaker standing to hold forth on what we should do about our constitution. On the whole we like our system of government. And when enough of us agree it should be changed, we do change it.

Now, how about that hypothetical? Are you ready to surrender some of your sovereignty in pursuit of uniformity....oops, I mean "equity"?

Canada is a muticultural country, too, with its own regional subtleties and diversity. There's lots to discuss about the apparently subltle differences between Canadians in Toronto and Canadiens in Montreal beyond the rivalry between the Leafs and the Habs.

For example, we like our New York Fries which were invented in Toronto, but the Quebecois stand by their poutine.

The Fathers of Confederation provided for such differences to co-exist and even encouraged regional diversity to continue in one nation. It is a challenge, to be sure, especially with two official languages, not just at the federal level but even at the provincial level of government as it is here in Ontario.

Some things are a big complicated deal, but finding an authoritative version of the 1982 Constitution of Canada in french is as easy as entering constitution canada french in google.

Allowing for meaningful diversity, Quebec retains its civil law code, but all Canadians are subject to one Criminal Code and the right to trial in either official language regardless of the province in which the crime charged was committed. As is candidly admitted, the Criminal Code for Canada is overdue for amendment but thankfully there are not 10, or 50, such codes crying for law reform, as in some other countries.

There are many elements of federalism in both the USA and Canada that have merit. State to state jurisdiction over criminal law in the USA just doesn't happen to be one of them, in my opinion and I may not be alone on that among jurists and constitutional experts.

Even amendments that might seem reasonable to the wisest in our countries might never happen because our governments are politically motivated. Political motivations at the time of the original draft of the US Constitution account for the separation of powers that made sense to the framers at the time but are difficult to defend in a modern world where the individual states are not so isolated from each other and their citizenry more cosmopolitan.

With traditions of freedom of speech it is fair and even desirable for continuous thoughtful debate. Such debate is not everyone's cup of tea, as they say in the country from which both the USA and Canada derive their respective legal systems.

Maggie, you have every right to be patriotic or idiotarian or whatever you choose. It's unfortunate if intellectual critique of the United States Constitution with you is only possible when you're discussing it with another American.

I imagine that across the USA and the world there are constitutional lawyers who can engage in discussion of this topic without taking offense or deriding another's viewpoint or opinion, or qualification to engage in such discussion on the basis of nationality. I had hoped that our discussion here in the Cellar might ascend to that level before it ass ends to this ... go fist yourself.

I'm not here to argue but to add value to rational discussion and to amuse those who have a sense of humor. I trust that I've satisfied y'all on both accounts. ;)

What's your personal experience with Canada's medical system? Some say that we should adopt a similar system, but others say that it's slow, beaurocratic, and inefficient. Do Canadians really cross the border just to get access to the U.S.'s hospitals?

Personally, I've never felt the need for myself or my family to travel out of the Province for great health care, even life and death situations in our family involving childhood leukemia cures at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, which is one of the best in the world by reputation.

For routine check-ups, recently my athletic son walked down to Mount Sinai Hospital for a free MRI on his pitcher's elbow ... no wait ... no hassle ... no charge. I like to see my tax dollars working.

Those Canadians who can afford premium health care, such as Mayo Clinic, might travel to the US or other countries for specialist care that is available even to Americans on the basis of best care for the most dollars.

On the other hand, many Americans travel to Canada for affordable prescription drugs.

Call me a commie centrist, but medicare is another issue where I value a national system of government subsidized health care that provides a high quality of care to everyone in the country.

It's a huge issue and it's an expensive proposition that results in higher taxes, which aren't popular with anyone.

The richest of our populations are disproportionately represented in Congress, the Legislatures and Parliament, so affordable healthcare is not really a personal problem for these people. And the insurance companies have some sort of lobby group that has to be accommodated. And doctors don't make as much money when the government controls health care costs. So, who benefits?

For most of the people, universal healthcare is one of the greatest benefits of a civilized society ... and you only have to look at Canuckistan and Cuba to see how true that is. ;)

That's the second time you've ignored responding the hypothetical that would add a personal dimension to the issue for you.

You're perfectly fine with telling US states why they should surrender their soverignty to a top-heavy Federation, but here's an opportunity to put your intellectual money where your metaphorical mouth is: show us how much you believe in large centralized governments by telling us you'd accept in one where you were a member of a small minority.

But offered two opportunities to debate that point you'd rather sulk. Come on back when you're truly willing to *debate*, rather than simply flinging criticism of others around. Such as: "...there are not 10, or 50, such codes crying for law reform, as in some other countries. " The crying you hear isn't our codes. It's just you, calling for us to fix something that isn't broken.

My point about diversity of Canadian culture wasn't that it "isn't diverse". My point was that it doesn't span as widely as US culture does, because the US population is ten times larger; it draws from many more sources. That's not because our culture is "better", it's just a statistical result of an order-of-magnitude increase.

Ferinstance...New York, Maryland and New Jersey collectively have a population about equal to Canada. (Strangely enough, they have very similar laws about a lot of things.) . Texas and Pennsylvania taken together make a population about the size of the UK or France: twice the size of Canada's.

Our laws aren't "crying out for reform"; you're just comparing apples and oranges.

The US isn't run like the UK or France or Canada is, because it's a different kind of organization by design; externally we're a soverign nation, but internally we're way different from Canada or France. (We have the Brits to thank for that, kicking them out was the main reason we federated in the first place.)

In some ways we're more like what the EU wants to be when it grows up, but in other ways we're 'way different because we're traditionally wary of collectivisim and socialism; as the Soviet experience has shown they don't scale well.

Quadruple our population in the same land area and you'd have China. Look what wonderful things centralized control by a colllectivist government has done for them....and they only killed a population about the size of Canada in establishing it.

They even have socialized medicine... :-)

He doesn't want to debate. He wants to converse intelligently and non-competitively about our governments. It doesn't have to be a big ol' war.

I enjoy a debate. I don't really care to argue, but I sometimes get into it, with regrets. I find that comments like "go fix your own country before criticizing ours" feels like arguing to me. It is not very engaging and just shuts down my response mechanisms.

Taking the position that if there were anything wrong with America, we the people would change it, is an obviously naive viewpoint and it surprises me that Maggie takes such a discussion-ending position and then whines that she doesn't get a response out of me.

Maggie's opinions and viewpoints often make sense to me, even when I and others disagree with her, but I'm too old and tired for all day sandbox fights.

I don't mind anyone taking shots at me, justified or not. And I really appreciate it when they're right. I'll take my own shots at anyone here whenever I get the chance, in good humour. I prefer a well placed jab than a rantfest, but hey, no one has to play like me or with me.

It can be, if you don't have a good sense of realism.

Which is why I always keep a kleenex handy to wipe off my rose-colored glasses. :)

...because? "Obviously naive" is thus far an unsupported assertion. Do you have a supporting argument?

Remeber, the original proposition wasn't "there's nothing wrong with the US", but "the US criminal code should be the same in every state". I happen to think there's many things wrong with the US...having unconstitutional gun laws in too many states is an example. A nationalized criminal code might solve that problem. It might not. But I'm not willing to support "let's have the same criminal law everywhere in the US" as the solution.

It seems to me the people of the US have the means to change the Constitution, have done so in the past, and can do so in the future. I just don't see any big push to make criminal law the same in every state. To me this says that most citizens don't think that would be beneficial.

What I'm "whining" about is your repeated failure to respond to the hypothetical that reframes "What's wrong with the US constitution" into "What kind of government would *you* want to live under in a nation of this size or larger?". This way, instead of you telling other people how they should run their governemnent, we're talking about a situation *you* would have a personal stake in. (This changes things...if you're a voter, you know that.)

That's "discussion-ending" only if you didn't like the discussion going in that new direction. You could either say "Yes, I'd gladly let my local soverignty be subsumed in a much larger electorate, in the interest of a uniform code of justice." or say "I see what you mean, maybe smaller legal domains are better sometimes", or come up with some substantive alternate response.

But if all you have to say is "The US Constituion is obsolete and needs fixing because doesn't work the way we do, which is obviously correct to anyone who believes in justice", then the discussion *is* over....and the only actual "whining" is your repeating "You won't debate with me because I'm not a US citizen".

The whole issue of your citizenship only arose when you questioned my standing to speak for US citizens who like our Constitution. I'm *here* in the US, and I think there's quite a lot of us. Anecdotal evidence, perhaps, but do you offering anything that contradicts that view beyond assertions?

You can simply *call* that position "obviously naive", but if there's some mass of discontented and disenfranchised citizens itching to change the current balance of power between the states and the Feds (in the 'more centralized' direction, anyway), I've missed them somehow. Can you point them out to us? I'd think they'd be at least as visible as, say, the Parti Quebecois, but then as you say, I'm obviously naive.

How about it, Syc? Does he maybe mean the Democrats? :-)

What exactly are you asking me?

Cockfighting is legal in Oklahoma, where cocksharing is criminal.

Everywhere in Canada there is butt one Criminal Code provision that establishes what is criminal and what is not for everyone in the country.

Penile Codes from around the world.

Hey Nic, you gonna answer Maggie's question or are ya just gonna keep posting more useless links ?

No.

Apologies if content laden posts are challenging for those who lack the necessary bandwidth.

I'm not trying to get into a debate here (this one is messy enough and the US constitution is a pretty damn fine document anyway) but i assume your arguement is it's easier to push change in a smaller government than a larger more monolithic one right? At the same time though, can't the feds override state law anyway, al la californian medial pot laws?

The United Sates of Europe was recently a suggested name but it'll be a long, long time before the EU resembles anything like the US, the history and politics is jsut soo much. I can see some areas merging like military but that kind of soverign control? Nope.

Personally i just think democracy doesn't scale well.