Enjoying some bedtime hay after a busy day snoopervising BunMum’s annual report work. We can hardly wait until the weekend when we can catch up on Mastodon! 😊❤️ -Skye
Enjoying some bedtime hay after a busy day snoopervising BunMum’s annual report work. We can hardly wait until the weekend when we can catch up on Mastodon! 😊❤️ -Skye
@Byronrabbit @RainCityBunnies @Satori @thegreatrabbit
Both would require a constitutional amendment. That's simply impossible in Canada right now, and seems unlikely to change for many years.
The USA has a clearly defined way to amend their constitution, and has done it a number of times (but not recently).
If I had to put money on which of those comes first, it would be the electoral college in the USA, though it exists for a reason...
@Byronrabbit @RainCityBunnies @Satori @thegreatrabbit
In Canada's case, we've had two national referendums on amending the constitution since 1982. Both failed.
We asked and got Britain to pass the Canada Act which gave up their ability to modify our constitution (since they originally created it). And then Canada passed (minus Quebec...) the Constitution Act (1982) which gave us a system that defined a way to amend the constitution, but with conditions that make doing so impossible.
@Byronrabbit @RainCityBunnies @Satori @thegreatrabbit
I just saw my mistake in this. For the Latin pedants out there, yes, Canada has had two national referenda on the subject.
@Byronrabbit @RainCityBunnies @Satori @thegreatrabbit
I've always loved the -or / -ix male/female thing. Not sure why. Sounds exotic?
And ya, misuses like that bug me too. I was taught to check how it sounds when you remove the "<other> and". In this case, "gave it to I", which is more obviously wrong.
But there are bigger fights worth fighting. I will die on this hill before I accept #millennials' insistence that "literally" means "figuratively".