John Ibbitson Argument Summary
ummary of Argument
The article by Andrew Coyne, New Senate Activism Undermines the Very Principle of Democracygoes on to justify the ruling by the Supreme Court against the proposed senate reforms of Harper’s government, the reform proposal went against the constitution and would require the amendment of the Canadian constitution(Coyne, 2016). On the other hand, John Ibbitson in his article, Could be the Upper House’s Defining Moment, paints the senate as a very important body and one in which appointments ought to be done out of merit and whose function is meant to provide sound advice at the same time checking the actions of the government.
Reasons for differences in the authors argument and the concept of democracy
Andrew Coyne seems to be hell bent on checking the powers of the senate to ensure that such powers are below those powers of the House of Commons. His premise of argument is directed towards vilifying the position that the new senate takes when it comes to making amendments then insisting on the place of the senate respecting the electorates in the house of the commons. However, John Ibbitson takes a rather solid stand which tends to identify the real role of the members of the senate. This, as he aptly puts it is the advisory role …show more content…
In his thinking – which is entirely true – the role of the senate is an advisory role to the government and checking the laws that are passed by the House of Commons. However, for the purposes of democracy, he sites that even if the members of the senate are appointed as independent candidates, the selection process ought to be on the basis of merit and ought to follow the due process. I am in support of the arguments presented by this author because he looks at the public good. At times the House of Commons might pass laws while looking at their immediate self-interest, however, an experienced senate remains as one of the bodies to bring justice
The article by Andrew Coyne, New Senate Activism Undermines the Very Principle of Democracygoes on to justify the ruling by the Supreme Court against the proposed senate reforms of Harper’s government, the reform proposal went against the constitution and would require the amendment of the Canadian constitution(Coyne, 2016). On the other hand, John Ibbitson in his article, Could be the Upper House’s Defining Moment, paints the senate as a very important body and one in which appointments ought to be done out of merit and whose function is meant to provide sound advice at the same time checking the actions of the government.
Reasons for differences in the authors argument and the concept of democracy
Andrew Coyne seems to be hell bent on checking the powers of the senate to ensure that such powers are below those powers of the House of Commons. His premise of argument is directed towards vilifying the position that the new senate takes when it comes to making amendments then insisting on the place of the senate respecting the electorates in the house of the commons. However, John Ibbitson takes a rather solid stand which tends to identify the real role of the members of the senate. This, as he aptly puts it is the advisory role …show more content…
In his thinking – which is entirely true – the role of the senate is an advisory role to the government and checking the laws that are passed by the House of Commons. However, for the purposes of democracy, he sites that even if the members of the senate are appointed as independent candidates, the selection process ought to be on the basis of merit and ought to follow the due process. I am in support of the arguments presented by this author because he looks at the public good. At times the House of Commons might pass laws while looking at their immediate self-interest, however, an experienced senate remains as one of the bodies to bring justice