F.H. Buckley: Canada’s system of government is proving far superior to America’s http://t.co/00PyaAUoff via @fullcomment – Repeal laws hard
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) December 5, 2014
This is a fascinating article. For those who understand how difficult it is to reverse ciizenship-based taxation, FBAR and FATCA consider the following excerpt:
“What Canada has importantly over the U.S. is reversibility, the ability to undo bad laws. That doesn’t happen so easily in America, with the gridlock built into its separation of powers, and that’s a problem Fukuyama himself has identified in two recent books that describe a sclerotic society of special interests which enact wealth-destroying laws. Once passed, Americans are stuck with bad laws. Their constitution doesn’t have a reverse gear.
What Fukuyama recognized in his recent books is James Madison’s error in The Federalist Papers. Madison argued that the separation of powers would prevent bad laws from being enacted in the first place. However, that’s an example of what Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit,” the idea that planners can anticipate all the problems that might arise with a well-drafted statute. More modestly, Canada’s parliamentary system assumes that, in a world of human fallibility, mistakes will be made, that “experts” are often unreliable, that dumb laws will be passed; and that what is more important is giving the legislator the ability to bring hindsight wisdom to bear in undoing laws which experience tells us were ill-planned. If American government has gotten too large, if the statutory code and the federal regulations have caught a case of elephantiasis, that’s not surprising. The know-it-all hubris of the planner was baked into the American constitution from the start.”
Of course, we should also remember how easy it is to pass bad laws in the first place. Many laws are simply tagged on to unrelated laws. In fact, FATCA itself was a Trojan Horse Law. In fact, as at least one U.S. politician reminds us, sometimes we:
“Have to pass the law so that we can see what’s in in it.”
U.S. laws are so complex that sometimes we have to pass the law just so that we can learn what's in it! https://t.co/H9qJluaCWw
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) December 5, 2014
You can read the complete article referenced in he above tweet here.
@Duke of Devon,
Sorry mate but not being able to have stuff because you can’t pay isn’t rationing. I don’t see why I should pay for the healthcare of a bunch of losers. Sure we should help the truly needed. That’s not being with not much money. That’s people who couldn’t ever be expected to have a job because of physical or mental incapacity. Everyone else should pull their weight,
In regards to weaknesses of the US system, one weakness is that while the theory of the balance of powers between the three branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, that there is a real balance – the application of the Judicial branch in terms of The Supreme Court considering the constitutionality of laws – this application is very much reactionary and requires a case to be filed and a case to work its way up the judicial system to be heard (or not heard) by The Supreme Court. And, such process requires years and huge expense.
Perhaps this is the same with Canada, and many other nations?
The US President has taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. One may imagine leadership on this issue where the President may say that looks unconstitutional and question a law a bit extra. In practice in regards to the Presidential Oath of Office, the President may ignore the Constitution and waits until s/he has direction from The Supreme Court. This whole process as we see with FATCA may take years.
One may imagine the balance of powers working a bit differently:
1) Where the President and Legislature may refer laws to the Supreme Court to short circuit the multi year process. Yet, as in the case of FATCA the President has signed a law that both houses have just approved then how likely are these two branches to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court for review? However, the existence of such a capability to refer to the Supreme Court would, IMHO, force the Executive and the Legislature to have a bit more thought about the Constitution and US Bill of Rights when creating/approving their legislation. In practice one may hope that such laws do not become a means to flood The Supreme Court with laws in attempt to make the referral of laws ineffective.
2) The Supreme Court may reach out themselves and say – we will review such and such laws. No doubt such capability has the potential to short circuit the multiyear process and huge expense of bringing an issue infront of The Supreme Court.
A potential downside of 1) and 2) above is politicization of the Judicial Branch.
Disclaimer: I don’t have a PHD in the US balance of powers.
Rereading the National Post article this morning it struck me that the most important factor which determines the success of a particular government may simply be absolute size. You certainly see examples of that at the corporate level with small, nimble companies eventually growing into monsters which lose their way. Bigger is not necessarily better. Think Microsoft, for example.
So while we are lucky to live in a relatively functional country, multiply Canada times ten and it might face serious problems the same as the US. The US may well be a victim of it’s own success. Dictatorships are not as susceptible to this; even if very large they can still make decisions and get things done. Think China. The Cons pilloried JT for effectively saying just that.