Introduction
A constitution is defined as codified rules set by people that illustrate the functions and powers of a political body. These rules, therefore, make up the body and are different from place to place. As used in most countries, it defines the government, specifying its limits and powers like duties, structures as well as basic political principles. These are usually done to guarantee some rights to the individuals bound by that constitution; it, therefore, comprises a detailed structure of law, which delineates the functions of a government. Constitutions are either codified or uncodified, the former are contained in one document with numerous sources, which may be written, or not. These types are the most dominant in most governments and they draw every decision from it. The constitution in this case is considered supreme to any other law. However, an uncodified constitution that may be drawn from different sources written and unwritten, can be changed just like a statute by legislatures.
Other laws can be implemented, and adjudicated, however, their use is subject to conflict with the constitution. The constitution is usually considered supreme that is, in codified ones. It, therefore, means that any other law comes secondary if it directly conflicts with the constitution. A flexible constitution is one that can be amended easily while a rigid one cannot, the extent of flexibility and rigidity depends on each country and whether it is codified or not. Some constitutions contain articles that are un-modifiable, like in Germany’s constitution, articles 1 and 20 affirm that power is derived from the people, and this cannot be changed under any circumstance. Constitutions can be flexible in some parts while rigid in other parts especially those relating to basic human rights.
The underlying tenets of modern constitutionalism
Modern constitutionalism started immediately after World War II, it has since been embraced throughout the world. It is, however, worth noting that not all the tenets of constitutionalism are implemented in all countries, although some basic rights are protected. Constitutionalism is described as the basic law that manages a government. Its tenets are based on limiting higher law for the protection of rights and interests of citizens as well as minorities. It states that the government derives its authority from the citizens and therefore must be limited by the tenets. Constitutionalism, therefore, ensures that no government leaders do anything as they please. Canadian constitution follows a federal-state law in which part of its territory is allocated to the institutions of the federal government while other portions are left to the various provinces. Each of the provinces can have its unitary constitution since they divide power with the federal government. Canada is an example of a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch is the head of state but under the constitution. Canada’s constitution has experienced significant changes over the last years and this led to diminishing sovereignty as constitutionalism takes place. This has affected the balance, which used to lie between democracy and liberalism as democracy loses the fight with time. Unwritten constitutionalism has taken the stage in most constitutional changes, for instance, the decision of the court of appeal in British Columbia on JTI-Macdonald Corp against the Attorney General, which went JTIs way is an elaboration of constitutionalism in Canada.
The doctrine of limited government
Canadian federal government functions with a constitutional monarch in a parliamentary system backed by powerful democratic traditions. Most of its legislative practices are derived from Westminster parliament, although their parties are considered much stronger than those of the United Kingdom are. The doctrine of limited government is brought about by constitutionalism and ensures it does not infringe on the rights of citizens from whom it derives its power. This doctrine mainly concerns the liberals, designating points beyond which, governments should not pass. Canada mainly comprises democrats and liberals with the latter stressing more on a limited government. The federal government of Canada is founded on the primacy of God as well as the law. Its provision known as the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, which was enacted in 1982 in their constitutional act, guarantees freedoms and rights to its citizen unless prescribed by law, which must be justified in a liberal and democratic culture.
These laws entail certain basic freedoms like religion and conscience, democratic rights such as the right to freely vote and vie for any legislative office, rights to equality, mobility, minority languages, enforcements and legal rights, among others. This charter limits the government from infringing on these rights and freedoms against individual citizens and is meant especially to the liberals who need assurances of their freedoms. These laws are necessary for assurance of the government’s commitment to upholding its subjects’ rights irrespective of whom, or which party comes to power. It sets the stage for a limited government and ensures it does not use its position to abuse basic human rights. It is therefore meaningful as it takes into consideration the fundamental rights of citizens.
The rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy
Canadian rights and freedom are categorized as follows; fundamental freedoms, which cover freedom of religion, beliefs, peaceful assembly as well as association; democratic rights, which give every citizen a right to vote and be voted in the House of Commons, and directs the maximum sittings as well as annual sittings of the legislative bodies. The other is mobility rights, which give every citizen the right to live in or out of Canada. Whoever possesses permanent residence is allowed to choose to stay and gain his livelihood wherever as well as living up to everything in that province. The others are legal rights, which give security and liberty to citizens, with rights in this docket pertaining to detention or imprisonment, search or seizure, self-incrimination, interpreter, punishment or treatment as well as proceedings in penal and criminal issues.
Others include rights to equality before and under the law. With official languages stated as English and French, although other minority languages are allowed as long as they have the numbers. In addition, Canadian citizens enjoy the right to enforcement of law in case one’s rights are infringed; it also states clearly that aboriginal’s freedoms and rights are not affected by the charter, and hence allows them to exercise freedom. Equality for sexes is also guaranteed with limited legislative powers among other inclusions in the charter. Aboriginals’ right, therefore, misses from the charter and other freedom rights. Given that everyone is presumed equal before the law, even aboriginals should have the same laws as others, as well as other freedom and rights groups, which may not be affected, by the law, as this may pave way for exploitation.
The federal principle incorporated in the Constitution Act, 1867
The federal principle, which was enacted into the constitution Act, has undergone several changes, in its conception and implementation; there were only three provinces in British North America, consisting of (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the province of Canada). It permitted other colonies and provinces to join, Westminster model was then adopted by the new government of Canada allowing for federalism. Over the years since its incorporation, its use has found its way to the sidelines, with its present value being its utilization on the division of powers between the federal government and provinces. Disagreements between the provincial and federal governments over the constitution set the stage for these changes as they spent another 50 years under British rule, unable to formulate a formula to amend their constitution.
Conclusion
The act requires amendment since it does not absolutely define even the prime minister; it has no inclusion of the prime minister’s office and contains other provisions for amendment. The act, however, did not have any formula for amendment even though the constitution was to be modified. Its 7/50 formula for amendments was quite high even as people became hopeful of its amendment in the future. In addition, the Supreme Court has to be changed as well, which could affect the offices of the governor-general and monarch. These are very controversial areas in the way of any amendment to this document and therefore place a big obstacle on its way.