Introduction
Despite some instances of similarities between the American constitution and the Canadian constitution, there are also some great differences. This has lead to the development of different academic journals that try to elaborate on these differences and similarities. Several reasons have been highlighted in an attempt to explain why Canadian and American constitutions differ.
Theories on the American and Canadian Constitutions
According to Edward, Curtis, and Baer (2000, 47), the past theorists tried to explain that these differences were brought about by the advent of the American Revolution. This view has been widely used in compiling and describing Canadian history. After the establishment of the United States, its founders adopted the idea of republicanism. This fascinated them because it emphasized inventions, independence, and the eradication of corruption. Many of the Americans feared coming up with a central government such as the one that was being practiced in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the stalwarts who escaped from the thirteen colonies during the era of the American Revolution brought a great influence in Canada. They came with few republicanism ideologies. They also lead to the democratic rejection of the Canadian style of government at that time. George Woodcock argues that Americans are subverters who strongly follow ideas that they believe would lead to their country is the best in the world as well as being the role model to other countries when it comes to embracing democracy. For the Canadians, they opt to cling to their old loyalties.
According to fragment theory brought forth by Louis Hartz in Canada, it asserts that Canada’s political practices resulted from the immigrants who established the country. He also argues that American political customs were brought by people who migrated from Britain to evade persecution due to their religious beliefs as well those who migrated to establish trade with the Americans. By 1800, most of the Canadians were stalwarts who had been driven out of America during the revolution. However, in the late 19th century, Canada experienced an influx of socialists from Europe as well as trade union members who significantly contributed to changes perceived in present Canada. Another thesis attributes the differences between the Canadian and the American constitutions to the differences in religious beliefs among the people who live in the two countries. For a long time, Americans were deep-seated Protestants with most of them being members of evangelical churches. On the contrary, most of the Canadians were cohorts of the Anglican Church (Edward, Curtis and Baer 2000, 45-65).
Comparison between the two constitutions
The two nations are currently governed through constitutions whereby the Canadian constitution is moderately written and moderately conventional. For the Americans, their constitution is entirely statute. For the two nations, the supreme courts act as the interpreters of the constitution even though the top court of the United States has been involved in constitution interpretation for a longer period than that of Canada. The Canadian constitution comprises laws derived from the parliament of the United Kingdom and the Canadian parliament. Other differences that are exhibited in the two nations’ constitutions include the difference between the Canadian parliamentary system of governance and the presidential system practiced by the United States. Others are differences in the issues to do with the integration of powers and the separation of powers. For Canada’s form of governance, the senior cabinet ministers have been assigned roles as legislators. Ministers of the crown, have the obligations of counseling the queen and the assistant –regal Governor-General on how to exert the powers endowed to the crown. They are usually nominated by their electorates to the legislation posts in the Canadian House of Commons. Even though the president has not been given the mandate to elect a cabinet from the House of Commons, he or she usually does. This implies that members of the House of Commons liable to managerial actions also take part as legislators when it comes to lawmaking debates.
By contrast, the American president has no administrative responsibilities as a legislator. His duties are solely inclined to imposing and following up laws that have been approved by the lawmaking branch. Just as the Canadian sovereign, the American president may reject a bill that has been approved by particular legislators. He takes part in only irregular, unofficial meetings with the representatives as well as the senators. He or she addresses the gathered house of Congress infrequently; most often during the yearly senate of the union speech. In addition, the members of the president’s cabinet are forbidden by the constitution from serving in congress. It may be viewed like the Canadian prime minister has more powers than the American president. Since Canada’s lawmaking and administrative arms are drawn from one another, the governor hardly ever exercises his authority without being advised by the prime minister. This only changes when it comes to matters that might lead to constitutional catastrophe. To guarantee the steadiness of the government, the governor-general ensures that he or she elects a prime minister who has a greater influence on members of the Canadian House of Commons. In case the majority of the members of the House of Commons vote not in favor of the government on confidential matters, the prime minister is obliged to step down, ask the Governor-General to organize for an election, or is expelled by the Governor-General. The prime minister, who commands a minor group in the Canadian House of Commons, therefore stands a delicate position than the American president whose tenure is safeguarded by the constitution. In the United States, there reach a time for cohabitation which is usually termed as divided government. During this period, one or both houses of Congress are governed by an independent party other than the white house. The president also has an inadequate influence on the members of Congress making him lobby for support. This often leads to deadlocks that significantly drag the lawmaking process (McNairn 1996, 504-537).
Some of the reasons as to why the president lacks control over the lawmakers include his incapability in controlling their advancements or memberships in the party. In Canada, members from the prime minister’s party, who happen to contradict his or her opinions, are likely not to be promoted in the future. Such members also stand being expelled from the party by the prime minister. This implies that the major responsibilities in law-making are more divided in the United States than they are in Canada. For instance, the minister for national defense within Canada is responsible for ensuring and effecting changes within the defense policies. He or she is entitled to coming up with regulatory decisions, outlining the laws, and coordinating them as they go through the parliament. For the United States, the secretary of defense has to consult the leaders of both the Senate committee on armed services and the house committee on armed service before coming up with any regulatory decision. In both countries, the constitution provides for a yearly address to the general assembly where the administration programs are outlined. Here, the American state of the union speaks while the Canadian speech from the commode is read by the king or the governor-general. This speech is used to officially open every new session of the parliament. It consists of the announcements made by the cabinet showing their aims in the forthcoming parliamentary meeting.
Both countries have a federal system of government. In Canada, the different units forming the government are called provinces and territories while in the United States they are referred to as states and territories. In the United States, there is one federal district; the District of Columbia. In Canada, the disconnection of the national capital region from its provinces into autonomous districts that are similar has been anticipated but not yet achieved. In both countries, strong powers are concentrated to the governments of the various states or provinces. This act is referred to as the state’s rights in United States politics while in Canada it is referred to as decentralization. The Canadian government is considered the most decentralized. It is one of the few countries where the combined financial allocations of provinces outdo that allocated to the federal government. The provinces are responsible for most of the social issues within the nation which include education, health care, and others. This has also been greatly influenced by the fact that the prime minister’s office owns a huge amount of power within the government. The prime minister is responsible for advising the king or the queen on how to use their powers.
For the United States, powers that have not been dedicated to the president are kept by the states. Initially, such powers were kept by the federal government in Canada making the Canadian government centralized. In 1896, it was declared that the federal government could only use its powers to ensure that there was tranquility, order, and excellent governance. This resulted in the central government losing most of its powers making the quality of social services differ in various provinces. To mitigate this, various national plans regarding provincial authority have increasingly been brought off between the federal government and the provinces. While provinces maintain powers in areas affected by these national programs, the programs are run by the federal government which mostly funds them. In the United States, provinces are given exclusive
powers with regards to many areas that require federal obligations. Primary and secondary education includes some of these areas. A province in East-Central Canada is obliged to addressing immigration in the province. It also picks its group and individual income tax while for the rest of the provinces; personal income tax is collected by the central government. In the United States, providing for education is assigned to the states with all states collecting income tax apart from seven states.
In the United States, the central government exercises a significant amount of power. Due to the separation of power, this control is frequently moderated by different branches. While in Canada criminal laws are established by the central government, states within the United States may draft the criminal laws. Whereas each police of one state in the United States is prohibited from arresting in other states, various provinces within Canada collaborate with the central government in maintaining law and order within their jurisdictions. To deal with criminal laws that are beyond the state, the Americans have to involve the United States central law enforcement agencies. This agency works in collaboration with the local and state police force in cases where local and state laws have been dishonored (Jeffrey 2000, 48-76).
Differences between the constitutions
Other differences between the American and the Canadian constitutions include:
- For the Canadian government, powers of various provinces have been clearly defined while for the American constitution, it is the powers of the central government that have been defined.
- The Canadian constitution allows the federal government to participate in voting exercises while in the American constitution there is no such provision.
- All the upper arms of the judiciary within Canada such as the Supreme Court are governed by the federal government. For America, the federal government governs the federal courts while the state courts are governed by the state government.
- The Chief executive officer of a province in Canada is nominated, remunerated, and fired by the central government. The chief executive officer of the American state, the Governor, is appointed by residents of that particular state.
Senators; who have the responsibility of protecting the rights and interests of various regions are elected by the federal government. In America, these senators were initially appointed by the legislative body of the states. Presently, they are appointed by the residents of their states.
In Canada, criminal law has been put under national authority while in America it is under the states’ control.
In some instances, the common laws of varied provinces might be amalgamated under federal authority while the American constitution provides no such a clause.
In Canada, the federal government has the power to make corrective laws when a province has negatively affected denominational rights to education. There is no such provision within the American constitution.
The federal government has the authority to order the transfer of works that are provincial to the national rule while the American constitution has no such article.
The federal government of Canada gives grants to provinces while the American constitution provides for no such paragraph.
The central government is superior to the federal government.
For the Governor-General in Canada, there is a corresponding deputy governor for every province. In America, for each president, there is a corresponding governor in each state.
Canada has a powerful government as well as provincial governments. For Americans, the United States government represents the state’s government.
Canada has a House of Commons as well as different legislative assemblies within the different provinces. The United States has a House of Representatives. The different states also have their own houses of representatives.
In Canada, there is a senate and governmental councils for each province. The United State on the other hand has both the federal and state senates.
The Canadian federal government has a prime minister with each province having a premier. The case does not apply to the American government (BĂ©langer 2005, Par.1-5).
Clause on commerce
When it comes to issues on constitutional provisions about commerce, the Canadian constitution seems to bestow a lot of power to the federal government than what is provided by the United States constitution. The Canadian constitution grants the parliament an exclusive governing power over the directives on trade and commerce. The constitution does not portray limitations to multilateral and out of the country trade as they are portrayed in the United States constitution. The Canadian highest courts have ceded most of their inferior powers to the federal parliament than the United States superior courts have. These differences have come up due to the diverse systems of power distribution that are used in Canada. The United States constitution accords the superior powers to the central government leaving the inferior ones with the states. On the contrary, the Canadian constitution bestows exclusive superior authority to the provinces leaving the inferior power with the central government. This was done to avoid a case of civil wars as it had been experienced in the United States. It has lead to the Canadian provinces having tough sovereignty than it was in the United States. The firm control of members of parliament in Canada is said to be the main factor that has discouraged corruption within the country. Unlike American senators, the Canadian members of parliament do not require to levy huge amounts of money. Since they are less superior, business organizations do not have to contribute to them (Tyloy 2001, Par. 9-11).
Conclusion
Even though there are some similarities between the two constitutions, their differences appear to be more visible.
Reference
Bélanger Claude, “Comparing Canadian and American Federalism,” Marianopolis College, 2005, Web.
Edward Grabb, Curtis James and Baer Douglas, “Defining Moments and Recurring Myths: Comparing Canadians and Americans after the American Revolution” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology37, (2000): 45-67.
Tyloy Greg, “The Commerce Clause—Commonwealth Comparisons,” TNT ejournals for MS words, 2001, Web.
Jeffrey McNairn, The capacity to judge: public opinion and deliberative democracy in Upper Canada 1791-1854 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000).
McNairn Jeffrey, “Publius of the North: Tory Republicanism and the American Constitution in Upper Canada, 1848-54,” Canadian Historical Review 77, no 41(1996): 504-537