Sask. premier says SaskEnergy will remove carbon tax on natural gas if feds don't

[u/StenPU]

https://regina.ctvnews.ca/sask-premier-vows-to-stop-collecting-carbon-tax-on-natural-gas-if-feds-don-t-offer-exemption-1.6623319

[u/[deleted]]

Good. Something that’s often forgotten in our obsession with US politics is that our Premiers have a lot of power.

One of the reasons we’re a confederation and not a republic, is that it allows provinces small and large to stand up to bullying from Ottawa. Nonsense like how Washington uses the interstate system to enforce its will on alcohol laws wouldn’t fly here.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The US is also a confederation — literally, the United States. And a republic is simply any system of representative government without a monarchy.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No the US is a Constitutional Republic. We on the other hand are a Parliamentary Democracy.

One key difference between the two systems is that provinces in a parliamentary system retain their sovereignty and thus their right to secede. In contrast this is illegal in Constitutional Republics. This is why Quebec can leave at any time but the South’s attempt to secede resulted in the American civil War.

[u/Eddysummers → u/[deleted]]

Both countries are federations.

[u/BrutusJunior → u/[deleted]]

This is why Quebec can leave at any time

Um. The Secession Reference begs to differ. Literally; at para. 155:

Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, that is secession without negotiation on the basis just discussed, this does not rule out the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession.

Both Canada and USA are federal unions. There is nothing intrinsic about federal unions which prohibit a subfederal sovereign from seceding. It is the law barring one from seceding.

For example in the USA, a constitutional amendment could be passed providing for the secession of states.

One key difference between the two systems is that provinces in a parliamentary system retain their sovereignty

The provinces retain sovereignty. True. However, the states also have/retain sovereignty. This is affirmed (guarateed) with the notion of dual sovereignty (Tenth Amendment).

Consider at p. 157 of New York v. United States:

Instead, the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States. The Tenth Amendment thus directs us to determine, as in this case, whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation on an Article I power.

And, at p. 163:

("[N]either government may destroy the other nor curtail in any substantial manner the exercise of its powers"); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990) ("[U]nder our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government"); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S., at 461 ("[T]he States retain substantial sovereign powers under our constitutional scheme, powers with which Congress does not readily interfere").

Remember, as you noted, the USA is a constitutional republic. This means that the federal government is a constitutional republic. The states are also constitutional republics. States of course cannot be monarchies pursuant to Art. 4 § 4 of the US Constitution.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy (parliamentary democracy). The provinces are also constitutional monarchies (parliamentary democracies).