It's a bit challenging to keep track of. The Canadian government, like many other governments, also has a system with built-in separation of powers. In our case it's the differences between the judiciary, the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Crown. Within those groupings you get the expected three branches of government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive.
Probably the biggest difference between our two systems lies in the differences between the presidential system and the parliamentary system, which is largely a structural matter in terms of how representatives are elected/appointed and how they act.
We're also technically a constitutional monarchy, which means we too are limited by a constitution, and so we understand the difficulty undertaken to make any changes to the top-level document. For example, if we wanted to do away with the remnants of the monarchy and become an actual republic, we'd need to open up the constitution to do so. But that's like opening up a can of worms, as it invites other interests because, hey, while we're at it....
Anyway, enough of the threadjack. I don't see the U.S. Constitution feasibly changing anytime soon. I'm not sure if that's what Strange was implying, or whether he was implying that federal law would limit the right. Either way, it seems a bit far fetched. The culture of being armed is too ingrained I think.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-08-2010 at 05:26 PM..
|