what is a constitutional convention? how has the canadian political system been influenced by coventions?
131503
If you are talking about the constitutional conventions of Canada, there were three of them: Charlottetown Conference (1864), Quebec Conference (1864), and London Conference (1866).\n\n-----\nCharlottetown Conference\n\nThe Charlottetown Conference was a conference in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island for representatives from the colonies of British North America to discuss Canadian Confederation. The conference took place between September 1-7, 1864.\n\nThe conference was originally planned as a meeting between representatives from the Maritime colonies only: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island although Newfoundland was also invited. Britain encouraged a Maritime Union between these colonies, hoping that they would then become less economically and politically dependent on the Crown, as well as provide for greater economic and military power for the region in light of the ongoing U.S. Civil War. However another colony, the Province of Canada (modern Ontario and Quebec), heard news of the planned conference and asked that the agenda be expanded to discuss a union that would also include them.\n-----\nQuebec Conference of 1864\n\nThe Quebec Conference was the second meeting held in 1864 to discuss Canadian Confederation.\n\nThe delegates from the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island had agreed at the close of the Charlottetown Conference to meet again at Quebec City in October of 1864. Newfoundland also sent two observers, but did not participate directly in the proceedings. In the month between the conferences, the ideas presented at Charlottetown were drafted in the Seventy-Two Resolutions, specific goals to be achieved in the creation of a new country.\n-----\nLondon Conference of 1866\n\nThe London Conference was held in the United Kingdom in December 1866 and was the final in a series of conferences that led to Canadian confederation in 1867. Delegates from the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick met with officials of the British government to draft the British North America Act. A major issue of contention was education with Roman Catholic bishops lobbying for guarantees protecting the separate school system. This was opposed by delegates from the Maritimes, and the compromise reached was Section 93 of the BNA Act, which guaranteed separate school systems in Quebec and Ontario but not in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.
322285
First off, Canada has a parliament and the Queen of the United Kingdom is her head of Government.  This is just like the Australians, by the way.  The US is a republic with a different system of government altogether.  Culturally, there are many things that are similar but also many differences in their attitudes towards society.  Health care would be just one of the major differences in beliefs about how society should be treated by the government.  That issue alone would divide rather than unite these two countries.\n\nAlthough Canadians and Americans share common cultural experiences, the political differences are vast.  Canadians abroad typically wear a Maple Leaf to distinguish themselves from their Southern cousins in the USA.  Americans do not always recognize this symbol and, embarrasingly, ask the Canadian, "What part of the States are you from?".  Since most Americans are unaware of the differences between the two countries, they assume that Canadians are "just like them".  This is, obviously, not the case.\n\nCanada has a proud history as part of the British Empire and part of the Commonwealth today.  It is doing quite fine economically and has no issues in managing its own resources.  There's no impetus for them to merge with another country.\n\nAmerica has no need to take on more people and a land mass that's larger than it's own.  It has enough problems managing its own situation at the moment.  It hasn't even let Puerto Rico become a State, let alone considering the addition of Canada.\n\nThe notion is romantic on your part, but unrealistic in the end.
291730
The constitution of the Fifth Republic was approved by referendum on September 28, 1958. It greatly strengthened the authority of the executive in relation to Parliament.\n\nUnder the constitution, the President of the French Republic is elected directly by universal adult suffrage for a 5-year (originally 7-year) term. Presidential arbitration assures regular functioning of the public powers and the continuity of the state. The president names the prime minister, presides over the cabinet, commands the armed forces, and concludes treaties.\n\nThe French parliament is a bicameral legislature comprising a National Assembly (Assemblée Nationale) and a Senate. The National Assembly deputies represent local constituencies and are directly elected for 5-year terms. The Assembly has the power to dismiss the cabinet, and thus the majority in the Assembly determines the choice of government. Senators are chosen by electoral college for 6-year terms (originally 9-year terms), and one half of the seats are submitted to election every 3 years starting in September 2008.[4]\n\nThe Senate's legislative powers are limited; in the event of disagreement between the two chambers, the National assembly has the final say, except for constitutional laws (amendments to the constitution & "lois organiques"). The government has a strong influence in shaping the agenda of Parliament.\nThe United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, with executive power exercised on behalf of the Queen by the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers who head departments. The cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and other ministers collectively make up Her Majesty's Government. These ministers are drawn from and are responsible to Parliament, the legislative body, which is traditionally considered to be "supreme" (that is, able to legislate on any matter and not bound by decisions of its predecessors). The UK is one of the few countries in the world today that does not have a codified constitution, relying instead on custom and separate pieces of constitutional law.\n\nWhile the monarch is Head of State and theoretically holds all executive power, it is the Prime Minister who is the head of government. The government is answerable chiefly to the House of Commons and the Prime Minister is drawn from this chamber of Parliament by constitutional convention. The majority of cabinet members will be from the House of Commons, the rest from the House of Lords. Ministers do not, however, legally have to come from Parliament, though that is the modern day custom. The British system of government has been emulated around the world - a legacy of the United Kingdom's colonial past - most notably in the other Commonwealth Realms. The Prime Minister is chosen as the MP who can command a majority in the House of Commons - usually the leader of the largest party or, if there is no majority party, the largest coalition. The current Prime Minister is Tony Blair of the Labour Party, who has been in office since 1997.\n\nIn the United Kingdom the monarch has extensive theoretical powers, but his or her role is mainly, though not exclusively, ceremonial. The monarch is an integral part of Parliament (as the "Crown-in-Parliament") and theoretically gives Parliament the power to meet and create legislation. An Act of Parliament does not become law until it has been signed by the Queen (known as Royal Assent), although no monarch has refused assent to a bill that has been approved by Parliament since Queen Anne in 1708. Although the abolition of the monarchy has been suggested several times, the popularity of the monarchy remains strong in spite of recent controversies. Support for a British republic usually fluctuates between 15% and 25% of the population, with roughly 10% undecided or indifferent [2]. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II who acceded to the throne in 1952 and was crowned in 1953.\n\nParliament is the national legislature o
475001
That's a long list.... instead of giving the answers, I'll give you a link to study.....\n\nBut to answer quickly....\n\nThe constitution was put into effect in 1789, it does serve the people by making "Expo Facto" laws illegal, provide postal service to all citizens and divides power among 3 branches of government just to name a few. It was made even more powerful for the people when the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) was passed and the amendments were ratified.
456387
federalism: supporting the proposed U.S. Constitution in the late 1780s that favored a stonrg national government.\n\nrepublic: (That's easy, the U.S. is one!) a system of government in which political power comes from the people, who elect officials to represent them in decision making.\n\nincumbant:a political candidate who currently holds an elected or appointed office.
176119
Several people at my church in Michigan are Canadians, including the 2 ministers. From my long and thoughtful conversations with Canadians I have found that Canadians are a very diverse group of people, yet are unified by a strong desire to remain separate from the US both politically and personally. As one Canadian put it " being a Canadian is like living in an apartment above a noisy drunk, an incredibly well armed drunk."
424805
I do. Both federal and provincial. I also show up for municipal ones.\nI too strongly believe that if you don't vote you can't criticize the government. I don't want to deny myself that pleasure so I make it a point to participate. \nIt's important to throw your 2 cents(mine are a little less than yours as I am Canadian). Even if you're opposed to the party that wins the seat you can make a point by voting for a suitable alternative. I haven't voted for the Conservatives or the Liberals for several elections now. My vote guaranties a small financial contribution to the party chosen on my ballot so I usually pick a decent alternative.\nKudos to you for voting even though you're apathetic. You have your right to grouse.
30224
The question is a bit ambiguous. Any democratic government has rules defined by It's Constitution. So it all depends on which federal government you are speaking of. The U.S Constitution for example calls for elections every two years. There isn't a prescribed method of not having an election, which would only be conceivable in a time of such great conflict/disaster that the president would be forced to suspend the entire constitution and declare martial law. This is virtually an impossibility, such events would be so terrific it probably destory the U.S, or any other government as we know it.
64228
To help you get started, the Indian Consitution was framed after multiple Western Documents, including the US Constitution.  One of the bigger influences, however, was Brittain's form of government, with a parlaiment and prime minister, and the American form of executive power, with a president as a figurehead.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution, India wanted to detail as much as possible, which is why it is the longest constitution in the world.  For more information, look at the website below.
77768
Canada is a country occupying the northern portion of North America, and is the world's second largest country in total area.\n\nOriginally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples, Canada was founded as a union of British colonies, some of which had earlier been French colonies. A federal dominion of ten provinces with three territories, Canada peacefully obtained sovereignty from its last colonial possessor, the United Kingdom, in a process beginning in 1867 with its formation and ending in 1982 when Canada gained the authority to amend its own constitution.\n\nCanada is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Canada's head of state is its monarch, who is represented in Canada by the Governor General. The head of government is the Prime Minister.\n\nCanada defines itself as a bilingual and multicultural nation. Both English and French are official languages. In the early 1970s, Canada began to adopt policies based on the concepts of cultural diversity and multiculturalism. Many Canadians now view this as one of the country's key attributes.\n\nA technologically advanced and industrialized nation, Canada is a net exporter of energy because of its large fossil fuel deposits, nuclear energy generation, and hydroelectric power capacity. Its diversified economy relies heavily on an abundance of natural resources and trade, particularly with the United States, with which Canada has had a long and complex relationship, one which can be described as the strongest trade partnership in history.\n\nCapital Ottawa\n45°24′ N 75°40′ W \nLargest city Toronto \nOfficial language(s) English and French \nGovernment \n\n\nPopulation 32.4 million (37th)
359223
The UK does not have a written consitution like the USA does.\n\nOur constitution is based on three things; conventions, statutes and historical writings.\n\nSearching for 'The British/UK constitution' or any low level British politics website should give you lots more information.
182473
not many countries have a government UK style. It's pretty unique. It's quite an undemocratic democracy. Find out more from the House of Commons website. I think the only other country that has a similar system is Japan. Definitely not Canada/Australia/India. I repeat! Definitely not Canada/Australia/India!The UK gov has special intricacies that mark it out as v.unique, for e.g. we have no written constitution. Check out the uk.gov. website!
123344
The National Convention was established in 1792 by the Legisative Assembly. The Legistlative Assembly was set up the the original National Assembly that had issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and essentially overthrown King Louis XVI. \n\nDue to the opposition growing against the National Convention in some cities and rural areas prompted it to set up the Committe on Public Safety, led by the infamous Robespierre (who is considered the leader of the Reign of Terror), to deal with the "counterrevolutionaries" who were rioting. \n\nRobespierre wanted to create a republic of virtue where all citizen would be morally virtuous and be dedicated to France at any cost. He set up a revolutionary tribunal to try the "counterrevolutionaries", eventually executing some 16,000 victims. The tribunal relied on hearsay and the accusation of jealous neighbors as much as it did on actual evidence of counterrevolutionary activities. \n\nThe irony is that, in 1974, enough oppostion mounted against Robespierre that he was eventually arrested and killed, the last to go to the guillotine, in what is called the Thermidorean Reaction
563092
Come from Constitution
193834
Canada location is north of the United States of America and is actually a land of vast distances and certainly rich natural resources, although Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 while totally retaining ties to the British crown. Economically and technologically the nation has developed in parallel with the well  like US, its neighbor to the south across an unfortified border. \n\nCanada size in population is about 33 million inhabitants that occupies the northern portion of the North American continent, and is the world's second largest country in area. Inhabited for millennia by First Nations (Aboriginal peoples), Canada has evolved from a group of European colonies into a bilingual (English and French), multicultural, federation, having peacefully obtained sovereignty from its last colonial possessor, the United Kingdom. France sent the first large group of settlers in the 17th century, but Canada came to be dominated by the British until the country attained independence in the 20th century. English-speakers make up a majority of Canadians with a significant French-speaking minority concentrated in Quebec and neighboring regions. Substantial immigrant communities have also formed.\n\nCanada's paramount political problem is completely meeting public demands for quality improvements in health care and education services after a decade of budget cuts. The issue of reconciling Quebec's francophone heritage with the majority anglophone Canadian population has moved to the back burner in recent years; while in favour for separatism seems abated after the Quebec government's referendum on independence failed to pass in October of 1995.
404504
The constitution provides a legal foundation for our\nlaws and our cival discourse. Disputes and questions regarding\nall manner of civall and criminal conduct have a final\narbiture with the Supreme court and the federal and state courts.
262220
The Constitution of the United Kingdom is an area of uncodified law, consisting of both written and unwritten sources. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law". Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish any written or unwritten element of the constitution. The constitution is based on the concept of all sovereignty ultimately belonging to Parliament (Parliamentary sovereignty), so the concept of entrenchment cannot exist. The lack of a central written constitutional document explaining the fundamental principles of the state and relationship between its institutions and between the people leads some constitutionalists to regard the United Kingdom as having "no (formal) constitution". The phrase "unwritten constitution" is sometimes used, despite the fact that the UK constitution incorporates many written sources, statutory law being considered the most important source of the constitution. But the case remains that the constitution relies far more on unwritten constitutional conventions than virtually every other liberal democratic constitution.\n\nThe informal nature of the constitution has been conducive to a lack of the concept of "constitution government" or "constitutionalism" in the United Kingdom. The "government" (i.e. the executive) is drawn from the legislature, Parliament, since the UK has a Parliamentary system of government. The doctrine of "limited government", central in all written constitutions, is not prominent in the UK constitution, nor is separation of powers or formal "checks and balances". Since the government is said to be "fused" with Parliament, and virtually every government has a majority, governments have no formal restraint on their legislative power. This is only broken if government Members of Parliament vote against a government bill, which due to a strong whip system had, until 2005, not occurred since 1986. The phrase elective dictatorship was introduced in 1976 to highlight the enormous potential power of government afforded by the constitution. In practice, some principles and elements of the constitution, such as the rule of law, are so ancient and ingrained in the UK's political culture that they would be extremely difficult to abolish. Parliamentary sovereignty and of the rule of law have been widely considered the most important principles of the constitution since the nineteenth century, and attempts to substantially circumvent them would likely be met with backlash by the electorate or monarch.\n\nSince entrenched "constitutional law" does not exist, the UK constitution is flexible, as opposed to rigid constitutions such as the Constitution of the United States. It is often spoken of as being "organic" by political scientists, that is, it has been "evolving" over time from its medieval origins. In theory, its flexibility makes it responsive to political and social change, especially through political principles expressed in conventions. Despite the tradition of freedom of speech and other rights in the UK, until recently there was no modern statute or document that attempted to codify the rights of citizens in the UK, common law precedents being the main source of "rights". This has been remedied in recent years, with the incorporation of some important written sources, such as European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, which formally grants citizens specific negative rights that were previously lacking in the legal system. These sources are enacted in the European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998, respectively. Some argue that these developments, and the Labour government's reforms from 1997, have improved the constitution, des