The Canadian and American systems similarities

The Canadian and American systems similarities

The United States and Canada are among the oldest and most stable federations in the world. Modern federalism began in the United States in 1867, and its variation was adopted in Canada. In each country, federalism was established out of the need to consolidate various political factions in the British North America (Knop et al. 1995, 251). Federalism in both Canada and the United States formed the basis for economic growth. Despite a similar economic status and identity, the reason why Canada became a democracy, and the United States became a republic is due to the different political intuition and history.

The Canadian and American systems have several similarities. For example, the policies in both countries are sensitive to the existence of various levels of governments. The policymaking process in both countries is also intrinsically complex. According to Simeon and Radin (2010, 357), Canada and the United States are the longest federations in the world, even though the nature of their federalism is still contested in both countries. Moreover, both nations are liberal democracies, which share a long border and a continent. Besides, both Canada and the United States have an Ango-American tradition (Simeon and Radin 2010, 357). Through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the two countries have formed one of the most significant trading partnerships (Simeon and Radin 2010, 357). Thus, due to the high similarity in culture, language and history, Canada and the United States have an open immigration policy.

Both Canada and the United States have deviated from their understanding of the distribution of federal powers as initially stipulated in their respective constitutions. In both instances, judicial interpretations have been responsible for such drastic deviation. For instance, the intention of the 1867 Constitution in Canada was for the federal government to have more powers over the provinces (Field 1992, 107). The Canadian Supreme Court, however, gave more powers to the provinces than had been contemplated in the Constitution, while restraining the central government. Nonetheless, the Canadian Supreme Court has recently sought to create a balance in provisional and federal authority (Knop et al. 1995, 252). The Court has expanded central government’s mandate, but careful not to set a precedent for unrestricted federal infringement on provincials’ rights. Likewise, the Constitution’s intentions in the United States was for the states to have more autonomy, but the federal government currently has more powers than envisioned. In recent years, the judiciary in the United States has placed few limitations on the federal government’s ability to force standards on the states. Even though the Constitution assigned limited powers to the central government, the courts have allowed extensive scope for congressional authority (Knop et al. 1995, 252). These unlimited powers include the ability to deter state action, specifically on commerce and trade. Under Cooptive federalism, the United States government can subject state governments to new regulatory requirements (Knop et al. 1995, 253). Politicians have also continued to defend federalism, for instance, through Sanzone’s and Regan’s federalism. Thus, the courts in Canada continue to become active adjudicator of the federalism compared to the United States judiciary.

The government structures in both countries are vastly different. In the United States, for instance, the president is both the head of state and government, while in Canada, the Queen is the head of state and is usually represented by the Governor-General (Forsey 2016, 24). The Canadian Prime Minister is the head of government. The Queen has the power to protect the Canadian people and the parliament from prime minister in exceptional circumstances. For example, the Queen may reject the prime minister’s request to dissolve the House of Commons (Forsey 2016, 25). With a presidential-congressional system, the United States government is based on the distribution of powers among the three branches of government. According to Forsey (2016, 25), neither the president nor cabinet members can be members of Congress. Besides, cabinet members and the president cannot introduce legislation or defend it in Congress. The Canadian system is founded on the principle of concentration of powers (Forsey 2016, 25). The prime minister and his cabinet must be elected or appointed members of the House. Ministers also introduce government bills and have to answer daily question in Parliament regarding the state’s policies and actions (Forsey 2016, 25). Contrariwise, Congress and the president have fixed terms, as senators and the president are in office six and four years, respectively. Members of the House, the senators, and the president are elected for different periods. The president usually belongs to one party, and the opposing party often dominates one of the Houses (Forsey 2016, 25). Unlike in Canada, the United States the constitution also allows Congress to override a president’s veto. The primary reason for such a situation happens because one-third of the Senate, the House, and the presidency happens on the same day. The result, then, maybe a Democrat president and a Republican House. Thus, the president’s legislation may be blocked by the opposing majority in either of the Houses. In such cases, the president, unlike in Canada, cannot dissolve Congress until their fixed-term elapses (Forsey 2016, 25). The president can be removed from office through impeachment or an election every four years (Forsey 2016, 25). Despite the transformation in the Canadian and the United States Constitution, their origins and intentions are significantly different.

The US government structure is congressional, while the Canadian system is parliamentary. This variation creates vast consequences in the operation of their federalism. For instance, in the United States, there is emphasize on the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive (Knop et al. 1995, 253). Party discipline and weakness of the party in Congress further distributes power. Divisions in Congress are increasingly becoming evident in the states. In Canada, however, the legislature, the executive, and high party discipline make the provincial and the national government more centralized (Knop et al. 1995, 253). Unlike in the United States, the terms of office for elected officials are fixed. The government is also mandated to introduce key legislations, such as laws on taxes and public spending, and Congress is not allowed to increase the proposed amount. Moreover, the government has to maintain a majority in the House of Commons to pass the legislation (Forsey 2016, 26). If the government loses a majority, it has to either organize new elections or cede control to another party. Conversely, an American president may govern, even though Congress has rejected his policies. The president may also veto legislation from both houses, but cannot order an election (Forsey 2016, 26). Congress may also block the president from implementing some of his policies. If the House of Commons blocks the prime minister in Canada, he can either resign or replace the house. Thus, unlike in the United States, the Canadian political system punishes the government for failing to pass legislation.

Another difference is that in the American political system is that the practice, usage, and custom plays a large part in the Constitution. For instance, the qualifications, the method of removal, and the mandate of a United States president are stipulated on Constitution (Forsey 2016, 28). Until 1982, the Canadian prime minister was not mentioned in the constitution. Besides, the two-party system in the United States has established a different political dynamic compared to the multiparty system in Canada, which are highly regionalized (Simeon and Radin 2010, 363). Unlike a Canadian prime minister, An American president cannot have binding agreements with state governors, since the state and the federal government are highly separated.

There are also several institutional differences between Canadian and United States governments. For instance, the Bill of Rights was inscribed in the United States Constitution during the creation of the republic, as an affirmation of the citizen’s rights against the state and federal governments (Knop et al. 1995, 253). The founder’s intention for adopting the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the politics emphasized on individual rights than the rights of state and the importance of federalism after the Civil War (Knop et al. 1995, 252). In Canada, however, the Charter of Rights and Freedom was passed in 1982 (Knop et al. 1995, 252). The Charter was beneficial in unifying the Canadian political debate and became an influential nationalizing instrument as it gave status to aboriginals and other multicultural groups (Knop et al. 1995, 253). With the inclusion of the Charter in Constitution, the role of the judiciary became more apparent as it was tasked with enforcing the new rights and freedoms. The federal system in Canada is, therefore, in the process of resolving the tensions between the Charter of rights, parliamentary, and federalism (Knop et al. 1995, 252). Even though such tensions exist in the United States, they are often resolved by adopting national norms expressed through the Supreme Court or Congress.

In both countries, some pivotal moments had a lasting impact on the adoption and implementation of laws. In the United States, for instance, the Civil War create national supremacy and ended secession threats (Simeon and Radin 2010, 361). In Canada, the victory of the Anglo-Americans in the Seven Years’ War prevented its evolution into a francophone nation. Canada, however, established Quebec province for the French Canadians (Kaufman 2009, 18). The province considers itself autonomous and occasionally issue secession threats. Therefore, unlike in the United States, the French linguistic minority was territorially empowered as subnational jurisdiction. According to Kaufman (2009, 18), francophone Canadians outside Quebec do not provide political support for Quebecers, an indication that Canadian biculturalism debate is more about jurisdictional autonomy and less about the French language (Kaufman 2009, 18). Thus, historical moments, for instance, the Civil War, unified the states while in Canada, such moments increased the need for territorial autonomy for minorities.

The relationship between the federal and state or provincial laws is another significant difference between the United States and Canada. The constitution does not define how the operation of state law; instead it leaves the decision to Congress. In Canada, the provinces are insulated from central government coercion. Even though there is no predefined area in which state law functions, it is a more autonomous force that the Canadian provisional law (Field 1992, 113). Federal courts, at times, apply state law, even though they do not claim to interpret it. State law, therefore, is defined by the state’s Supreme Court and only the United States Supreme Court can overrule the interpretation (Field 1992, 113). The 1875 decision in Memphis v. Murdock made the state courts the arbiters of state laws (Field 1992, 113). Despite the legal justification, the Supreme Court used the Murdock’s decision to give states control over their laws. In Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court went further when it decided that the states supreme court’s rulings should guide the lower federal courts (Field 1992, 113). The basis for Erie was to support Murdock’s ruling states should determine their own laws. Conversely, in Canada, the provincial courts consider the primary judicial centers (Field 1992, 113). However, the Supreme Court can review their decisions and as it has the final decision on common law and the interpretation of provisional enactments. Even though the Canadian governance model gives more legislative autonomy to the provinces that the United States system, it does not allow freedom to the provincial law (Field 1992, 114). Therefore, judicial control is more centralized compared to than in the United States.

Overall, both America and the United States have similar traditions and have extensive economic cooperation. The two countries also share a long border, and they have an open immigration policy to ease the movement of people and goods. However, Canadian government is a parliamentary system while America has a congressional-presidential system. In Canada, the Prime Minister is the head of government and the Queen is the head of state. The President in America is both the head of government and the head of state. Canadian democracy was adopted form the British model and has allowed the cultural minorities such as the francophone Quebec to establish an autonomous territory. The United States, on the other hand, became a republic to unify the different states and end the need for secession. Thus, the differences in political systems between the United States and Canada is due to its history and political intuition.