Combarison Between Us Bill Of Rights And

Free Essay Database Online

Combarison Between Us Bill Of Rights And

Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Essay, Research Paper


The United States Bill of Rights came into being as a consequence of a promise made by the Fathers of Confederation to the provinces during the battle for confirmation of the Constitution in 1787-88. A great figure of the provinces made as a status for their confirmation, the add-on of amendments, which would vouch citizens protection of their rights against the cardinal authorities. Therefore, we have a instead interesting state of affairs in which the intrenchment of a measure of rights in the American Constitution was done by the practical demand of the provinces, they themselves fearing a cardinal authorities which was non lawfully constrained and restricted every bit far as its powers were concerned.

The resulting Bill of Rights is appended to the American Constitution as the first 10 amendments. These amendments automatically became an built-in portion of the original papers, doing them portion of The Supreme Law of the Land. It was so really entrenched, as the phrase is used in Canadian nomenclature.

The American Civil War had a really profound consequence upon the American Constitution and upon American constitutionalism by and large. The Civil war had so been fought over a inquiry of provinces rights, among other things, and the provinces rights reading had really lost and was, to a grade, a casualty of the wartime period. Further, that casualty was fleetly hammered into its casket by three amendments which were enacted in 1865, 1868 and 1870 the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment finally became the bosom and psyche of the modern American Constitution. Most of the legal conflict s environing the United States Bill of Rights have been to do it a truly national papers such that provinces may non go against its commissariats. The Fourteenth Amendment eventually made this possible.

A more sudden, but possibly every bit profound event is the acceptance in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the acceptance of the Charter Canadian legislative assemblies were supreme, holding power without bound within their legal powers, they now have problematic domination within altered legal powers. Furthermore, although no powers or rights have been explicitly reserved to the people, protagonists of the charter however appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may be.


Whether the American record has great significance for Canada poses a inquiry which sensible people may differ. The intrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary domination. The American judicial tradition of handling the written fundamental law as cardinal jurisprudence can non hold an instant Canadian opposite number. Therefore, it does non follow that the Canadian tribunals will needfully claim a function comparable to that of tribunals in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative organic structures in Canada would digest such a judicial averment of power. Resistance by authorities organic structures to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois authorities of Quebec invoked the notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clause for the intent of protecting their linguistic communication Torahs from onslaught under the charter. This study will try to observe some of the common and typical characteristics of the text of the two fundamental laws every bit good as to how they differ.

Three major categories of rights are protected by both the Canadian and United States fundamental laws. Freedom of look, faith, and assembly are safeguarded in portion I section 2 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, and in the First Amendment of the American Constitution. The Legal Rights listed in subdivisions 7-14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protecting condemnable suspects and suspects by assorted procedural precautions, are paralleled by American rights to hold advocate against dual hazard, inordinate bond, etc. , which find look in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. Finally, the thrust in modern democracies to supply greater legal protection against prejudiced official policies and actions finds look in subdivision 15 of the Canadian Charter, which bans prejudiced actions and authorizes affirmatory action plans to rectify the hurts of past favoritism. The American equivalent, the equal protection of the Torahs in the Fourteenth Amendment, has served to warrant tribunal determinations criminalizing segrega

ted schools, unequal intervention of adult females, and certain signifiers of favoritism against foreigners and other minorities.

As similar as the Canadian and American fundamental law may be in respects to their commissariats esteeming rights, both fundamental laws include commissariats which are alone to their ain several paperss. One of the most noteworthy differences in the American Constitution, which has no direct opposite number in the Canadian system, is the right to bear weaponries, which finds look in the Second Amendment. In respects to the Canadian Constitution there are at least four commissariats which deserve a particular remark.

First is subdivision 1 of the Charter, which states a individual criterion, applicable to all of the rights set out in the Charter, for judging the legitimacy of governmental justifications for restricting rights. United States jurisprudence has a assortment of criterions for judging the adequateness of governmental justifications, for restricting constitutional rights, depending on the nature, strength and history of the peculiar right.

Second is the intelligent turning away of a job that has occasioned much argument throughout American history: What is the textual beginning of the power of judicial reappraisal? Section 24 ( 1 ) specifically provides that one whose rights are infringed shall hold an appropriate judicial redress. Chief Justice John Marshall derived a comparable authorization for American tribunals from the nature of a written fundamental law and the philosophy of the separation of powers, since the constitutional text was soundless on the issue. Without clear textual support, guardians of the legitimacy of judicial reappraisal of Acts of the Apostless of Congress ( and the president ) have had to conflict coevals after coevals with those who assail it as an trespass.

Third is subdivision 24 ( 2 ) where the Canadian framers deal with the exclusionary regulation, a often invoked American judicial regulation punishing illegal jurisprudence enforcement patterns. This regulation was applied after 1914 to federal condemnable proceeding and since 1961 to province proceedings. There is a significant organic structure of sentiment to the consequence that the regulation is non required by the United States Constitution and is merely a judicially created redress that could be changed by statute law or tribunal determinations. The Canadian proviso is a via media between the common jurisprudence regulation and the exclusionary regulation.

Fourth, there is the absorbing mystifier in the Canadian Charter in subdivision 33, the notwithstanding clause. Unlike the Unites States where the philosophy of incorporation ( due procedure clause of Fourteenth Amendment ) made the Bill of Rights a genuinely national papers by forbiding provinces from go againsting its commissariats. Section 33 of the Charter allows the federal or provincial authoritiess the power to declare that a codified shall run notwithstanding subdivisions 2 or 7-15 of the Charter.

As stated earlier, one should bear in head, that what the American experience has been is non by any agencies needfully what the Canadian experience will be. The Charter of Rights is similar, in many respects, but as shown, there are besides some potentially of import textual differences. Most notably, the notwithstanding clause in subdivision 33 of the Charter, and subdivision 1 of the Charter, which states a individual criterion, applicable to all rights set out in the Charter. Although the two constitutional paperss may be similar in regard to their commissariats esteeming rights, it would non needfully follow that claims of misdemeanor of rights would have the same response from the tribunals of both states. A proper analysis of why this is so would necessitate a book-length history of the constitutional and political history of Canada and the United States. It would include but would non be limited to the choice and function of Judgess, the function of legislative assemblies and political leading, the attitudes and patterns of the constabulary and administrative bureaus, and, non least, popular attitudes towards rights, minorities, and authorities. In short, the whole of a people s manner of life.


McKercher, William R. , erectile dysfunction. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1983

Dumbauld, Edward. The Bill of Rights and What it Means Today Norman: University

Of Oklahoma Press, 1977.

Steven Talos, Michael Liepner and Gregory Dickinson. Understanding The Law

Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd, 1990.

Black, Charles L. The People and the Court: Judicial Review in a Democracy

New York: Macmillan, 1960.