See that mountain? You can fast travel to it!
ImplyingImplications
joined 2 years ago
Did you know that Ohio fries originated in Canada?
Police want me.
Drivers fear me.
I used to be a funeral director in Ontario. This situation is unfortunately not uncommon. At least once a month I'd have a family that couldn't afford even the cheapest option ($3,500 at my last place). Local social services offices would cover the cost but only if the deceased was a recipient of local social services which, in my area, did not serve anyone over 65. That meant anyone who died after 65 automatically did not qualify for benefits. You're fault for living old!
The most common solution was for the family to leave the body unclaimed. The coroners office would eventually get around to writing a warrant to bury an unclaimed body. We would take that warrant to the local social services office who would then pay for the cost of burial.
Do you see the issue? Social services wouldn't pay for a burial unless the family left the body unclaimed, in which case, they would then pay for a burial. Not only does this cause extra pain and suffering, since the family no longer has a say in when and where their loved one is burried, it's even more of a tax burden to do it that way because the coroner's office needs to get involved.
The president can do that, but states are still allowed to have their own drug laws. States can't make something illegal if there is a federal law saying it's legal. States can make something illegal if there is no federal law regarding it. It's why states can make abortion laws since there's no federal abortion law.
Descheduling cannabis is essentially the same thing as having no federal law and letting the states decide. It's not the same as legalization.
the minimum wage can’t support a family. But minimum-wage jobs are important stepping-stones, allowing workers to gain experience and move up to higher-paying jobs.
The article is suggesting to just stop being poor by getting a higher wage job. What if the person can't? No family for you?
My understanding is the president cannot fully legalize cannabis on their own. Best thing they can do is stop enforcement at the federal level, but the president can't stop states from continuing to enforce it at the state level.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing"
Don't fight up hill, me boys!
Is that generally the right idea?
In practice, that's generally the idea. Small parties haven't gone away because larger parties can usually bet on them lending a hand when the large party fails to win a majority, and voters aren't afraid to vote for a small party when polls are split. However, this is mostly a left wing thing, at least in Canada. Small right wing parties tend to eventually join up with the "big tent" Conservative party. Although it's mostly because small right wing parties tend to be unable to convince conservative voters to switch from the big party to their little party.
Because it's a unicameral legislature that appoints the executive, there's no possibility of checks and balances by bicameral legislature and pseudo-democratic election of executive.
Canada has a bicameral legislature, just like the UK. Our second chamber is the Senate, modelled after the UKs second chamber, The House of Lords. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and can serve until 75 (technically they are appointed by the reigning monarch but the constitution requires them to listen to the Prime Minister). All bills must pass a vote in both chambers before it is law.
In practice, the appointed Senators don't like to vote down bills that have been approved by the elected Members of Parliament since it upsets Canadians who have been asking "what is the point of the senate?" and "why don't we get rid of it?" for a long time. They will typically only request small changes to avoid loosing their very cushy jobs, though there are times they do play politics. They claim to be the chamber of "sober second thought", where things are debated on their merits without political fervor. To their credit, most of their debates do end with a unanimous decision.
Is it safe to assume that some things, like changing a federal or provincial constitution, would take more than a majority?
For changing the constitution, it requires approval of Parliament (technically the Senate has a say but at most they can only delay changes for 180 days) and 7 out of 10 provinces. In cases where the change affects only one province, only Parliament that province needs to approve.
There are a few special parts of the constitution that need to be absolutely unanimous: removal of the monarchy, lowering the minumum number of seats a province has in parliment, removing English or French from the offical languages, and changing the composition of the Supreme Court.
Excuse me, but my waifu has plenty of assets!