The Notwithstanding Clause Strikes Again!


Another moral panic against the Notwithstanding Clause has broken out and gripped the salons and cafes of Toronto in a repeat of the previous Panic of 2018;  Andrew Coyne outed himself yesterday as the Geraldo Rivera of this second wave.

Continue reading →

Posted in Constitution (Written), Constitutional Conventions, Notwithstanding Clause | 2 Comments

My Latest Book Review in the Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law


The Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law just published my review of Donald F. Bur’s Laws of the Constitution Consolidated, by the University of Alberta Press.

Similar Posts:

Posted in Articles and Books, Constitution (Written), Indirect Amendment, My Published Works, Reviews | Leave a comment

How Would We Amend or Abolish the Oath of Allegiance to the King in the Constitution Act, 1867 ?


The Leaders’ Debate and the Demise of the Crown

During Radio-Canada’s leaders’ debate on 22 September 2022, the moderator Patrice Roy barely suppressed his own condescending laughter to ask the leaders of five political parties, “Should we still, in Quebec, swear allegiance to the British Crown, thus ‘Charles III’?” to become a Member of the National Assembly. He also noted that Québec solidaire (a left-wing secessionist party) had tabled legislation in the previous National Assembly to make swearing the oath optional.

Premier François Legault said that he wouldn’t mind studying the question and possibly making changes but that he did not regard it as a priority; Liberal leader Dominique Anglade and Conservative leader Éric Duhaime circumvoluted less elegantly and less succinctly to the same effect. But Paul St. Pierre Plamondon, the leader of the Parti Québécois, and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the “male spokesperson” of Québec solidaire, denounced unambiguously what they regard as the absurdity of the oath, St. Pierre Plamondon on republican and secessionist principle and Nadeau-Dubois on the “because it’s 2022” teleology. No one on the stage seemed to take the oath of allegiance seriously, and even moderator Patrice Roy let out some incredulous chuckles whilst putting the question to the four party leaders and one male spokesperson.

François Legault led his Coalition Avenir Québec to a second consecutive and even larger parliamentary majority on 3 October 2022, winning 90 out of 125 seats. And on 18 October, Legault rejected St. Pierre Plamondon’s unconstitutional idea of passing a simple motion that would permit the three Péquistes elected to take their seats in the National Assembly without swearing the oath of allegiance on the grounds that a mere motion of a legislative body cannot supersede a provision of the Constitution Act, 1867.[1] Being a lawyer himself, Paul St. Pierre Plamondon should already understand that concept.

Continue reading →

Posted in Amending Formulas, Constitution (Written), Crown (Powers and Office), Oaths of Allegiance | 2 Comments

Fashionable Complaining about Single-Member Plurality


Sanjay Ruparelia’s column in the Globe and Mail today typifies the confused and contradictory discourse over electoral reform here in Canada. He joins Fair Vote Canada in perpetuating this absurd myth that majoritarian electoral systems encourage descent into authoritarian rule and in complaining that changes in government lead to what intellectuals and technocrats denounce as “policy lurch,” or what the rest of us call a change in policy between two political parties which hold different points of view.

Continue reading →

Posted in Electoral Reform, Reform | Leave a comment

Bizarre and Uninformed American Views on Monarchy


This is what Americans like Conor Friedersdorf have in mind when they write erroneous opinion pieces on the Royal House of Windsor

In general, I really wish that Americans would stop commenting altogether on the Royal House of Windsor, especially after the demise of Crown and the death of Her Late Majesty Elizabeth II of happy memory. Americans lost their standing and legitimacy to opine on any of these matters when they rebelled in the 1770s and should stop clumsily grafting their particular American narratives onto a system which they neither appreciate nor understand and which their ancestors expressly rejected. Americans obsess over the Royal House of Windsor – but only in a superficial, banal, and vulgar way. Our Royal Family satisfies their worship of celebrity and their gargantuan appetite for Disney-like kitsch. They see the Windsors as mere celebrities for their amusement and as objects of condescending comments about how “quaint” England looks.

Continue reading →

Posted in Comparative, Parliamentarism v Presidentialism | 5 Comments