Canada demonstrates some differences between the written Constitution tradition and the unwritten one

Canada elected a conservative party which was allowed to offer the Prime Minister about six weeks ago. The new PM has acted much as George Bush might have under similar circumstances, and the opposition parties banded together to pass a motion of no-confidence which would remove him. He quickly went to the Governor General who used her powers to "prorogue" the parliament until January 26th and prevent the motion of no-confidence from being acted on until that time.

Needless to say, many Canadians are calling "foul!" Americans watching the shenanigans are simply standing around in wonder asking "What the Fuck??"

U.S. Constitutional scholar Sandy Levinson (Academic Bio) over at Balkinization started a discussion among lawyers that begins to explain what is happening. Some knowledgeable lawyers have jumped in and provided both a quick review of the appropriate Canadian Constitutional history and a brief explanation of what is really happening.

Since apparently what has happened has fallen into the strange (to Americans) area of the tradition of the British unwritten Constitution, something which is a bit complicated by the written constitutional documents that Canada operates with (including the British North American Act of 1867 and the more recent (in 1982) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as "The Charter.")

Sandy Levinson is a well-respected American constitutional scholar. His book, Our Undemocratic constitution is displayed in the right-hand column of the blog. The only commenter I recognize is Bart DePalma, a right-winger who can be expected to present whatever ideology the conservatives believe in relatively well-organized terminology while generally missing the reality behind the words.

The whole discussion is relatively short, but highly informative to those of us who know nothing significant about Canadian politics. Apparently Canadian right-wingers are as insane as most American conservatives are. Six weeks in office and already facing a vote of no-confidence so likely to pass that they have to prorogue the Parliament until January just to avoid the vote?