Quote:
Originally Posted by accyman
is it state law and federal law they operate on because having two sets of rules seems to be a bad idea its like having lancashire laws,yorkshire laws etc then a uk law as well to adhere to.They say one nation under god but perhaps they should try one nation under one set of law?
|
It makes sense when you think of Federalism as a way of uniting distinctly different regiions of a large country, not to mention about 700 distinct First Nations in Canada. In other words, when Canada became Canada and when the United States became the United States, deals had to be cut so that all the Provinces and all the States which signed up would be more or less happy with what was put together. Once the initial deal is brokered, new Provinces or States can sign up. Newfoundland, for example, didn't join Confederation until 1949 ... in both World Wars, contingents from Newfoundland did not fight as part of the Canadian Forces. And when I was born, and for 14 years after, there were only 48 States in the Union; Alaska and Hawaii were granted statehood in, I believe, 1959. Both the Constitution of the United States of America and the British North America Act of 1867 lay out in great detail those powers and rights which belong to the Federal Government and those which belong to Provincial and State governments. Of course, there is the complexity surrounding residual powers ... but I have probably bored you enough already
