Daily Archives: November 23, 2022

Singularity (mathematics) – Wikipedia

Posted: November 23, 2022 at 4:27 am

Point where a function, a curve or another mathematical object does not behave regularly

In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity.[1][2][3]

For example, the real function

has a singularity at x = 0 {displaystyle x=0} , where the numerical value of the function approaches {displaystyle pm infty } so the function is not defined. The absolute value function g ( x ) = | x | {displaystyle g(x)=|x|} also has a singularity at x = 0 {displaystyle x=0} , since it is not differentiable there.[4]

The algebraic curve defined by { ( x , y ) : y 3 x 2 = 0 } {displaystyle left{(x,y):y^{3}-x^{2}=0right}} in the ( x , y ) {displaystyle (x,y)} coordinate system has a singularity (called a cusp) at ( 0 , 0 ) {displaystyle (0,0)} . For singularities in algebraic geometry, see singular point of an algebraic variety. For singularities in differential geometry, see singularity theory.

In real analysis, singularities are either discontinuities, or discontinuities of the derivative (sometimes also discontinuities of higher order derivatives). There are four kinds of discontinuities: typeI, which has two subtypes, and typeII, which can also be divided into two subtypes (though usually is not).

To describe the way these two types of limits are being used, suppose that f ( x ) {displaystyle f(x)} is a function of a real argument x {displaystyle x} , and for any value of its argument, say c {displaystyle c} , then the left-handed limit, f ( c ) {displaystyle f(c^{-})} , and the right-handed limit, f ( c + ) {displaystyle f(c^{+})} , are defined by:

The value f ( c ) {displaystyle f(c^{-})} is the value that the function f ( x ) {displaystyle f(x)} tends towards as the value x {displaystyle x} approaches c {displaystyle c} from below, and the value f ( c + ) {displaystyle f(c^{+})} is the value that the function f ( x ) {displaystyle f(x)} tends towards as the value x {displaystyle x} approaches c {displaystyle c} from above, regardless of the actual value the function has at the point where x = c {displaystyle x=c} .

There are some functions for which these limits do not exist at all. For example, the function

does not tend towards anything as x {displaystyle x} approaches c = 0 {displaystyle c=0} . The limits in this case are not infinite, but rather undefined: there is no value that g ( x ) {displaystyle g(x)} settles in on. Borrowing from complex analysis, this is sometimes called an essential singularity.

The possible cases at a given value c {displaystyle c} for the argument are as follows.

In real analysis, a singularity or discontinuity is a property of a function alone. Any singularities that may exist in the derivative of a function are considered as belonging to the derivative, not to the original function.

A coordinate singularity occurs when an apparent singularity or discontinuity occurs in one coordinate frame, which can be removed by choosing a different frame. An example of this is the apparent singularity at the 90 degree latitude in spherical coordinates. An object moving due north (for example, along the line 0 degrees longitude) on the surface of a sphere will suddenly experience an instantaneous change in longitude at the pole (in the case of the example, jumping from longitude 0 to longitude 180 degrees). This discontinuity, however, is only apparent; it is an artifact of the coordinate system chosen, which is singular at the poles. A different coordinate system would eliminate the apparent discontinuity (e.g., by replacing the latitude/longitude representation with an n-vector representation).

In complex analysis, there are several classes of singularities. These include the isolated singularities, the nonisolated singularities and the branch points.

Suppose that f {displaystyle f} is a function that is complex differentiable in the complement of a point a {displaystyle a} in an open subset U {displaystyle U} of the complex numbers C . {displaystyle mathbb {C} .} Then:

Other than isolated singularities, complex functions of one variable may exhibit other singular behaviour. These are termed nonisolated singularities, of which there are two types:

Branch points are generally the result of a multi-valued function, such as z {displaystyle {sqrt {z}}} or log ( z ) {displaystyle log(z)} , which are defined within a certain limited domain so that the function can be made single-valued within the domain. The cut is a line or curve excluded from the domain to introduce a technical separation between discontinuous values of the function. When the cut is genuinely required, the function will have distinctly different values on each side of the branch cut. The shape of the branch cut is a matter of choice, even though it must connect two different branch points (such as z = 0 {displaystyle z=0} and z = {displaystyle z=infty } for log ( z ) {displaystyle log(z)} ) which are fixed in place.

A finite-time singularity occurs when one input variable is time, and an output variable increases towards infinity at a finite time. These are important in kinematics and PDEs infinites do not occur physically, but the behavior near the singularity is often of interest. Mathematically, the simplest finite-time singularities are power laws for various exponents of the form x , {displaystyle x^{-alpha },} of which the simplest is hyperbolic growth, where the exponent is (negative) 1: x 1 . {displaystyle x^{-1}.} More precisely, in order to get a singularity at positive time as time advances (so the output grows to infinity), one instead uses ( t 0 t ) {displaystyle (t_{0}-t)^{-alpha }} (using t for time, reversing direction to t {displaystyle -t} so that time increases to infinity, and shifting the singularity forward from 0 to a fixed time t 0 {displaystyle t_{0}} ).

An example would be the bouncing motion of an inelastic ball on a plane. If idealized motion is considered, in which the same fraction of kinetic energy is lost on each bounce, the frequency of bounces becomes infinite, as the ball comes to rest in a finite time. Other examples of finite-time singularities include the various forms of the Painlev paradox (for example, the tendency of a chalk to skip when dragged across a blackboard), and how the precession rate of a coin spun on a flat surface accelerates towards infinitebefore abruptly stopping (as studied using the Euler's Disk toy).

Hypothetical examples include Heinz von Foerster's facetious "Doomsday's equation" (simplistic models yield infinite human population in finite time).

In algebraic geometry, a singularity of an algebraic variety is a point of the variety where the tangent space may not be regularly defined. The simplest example of singularities are curves that cross themselves. But there are other types of singularities, like cusps. For example, the equation y2 x3 = 0 defines a curve that has a cusp at the origin x = y = 0. One could define the x-axis as a tangent at this point, but this definition can not be the same as the definition at other points. In fact, in this case, the x-axis is a "double tangent."

For affine and projective varieties, the singularities are the points where the Jacobian matrix has a rank which is lower than at other points of the variety.

An equivalent definition in terms of commutative algebra may be given, which extends to abstract varieties and schemes: A point is singular if the local ring at this point is not a regular local ring.

See more here:

Singularity (mathematics) - Wikipedia

Posted in Singularity | Comments Off on Singularity (mathematics) – Wikipedia

Mendocino County history: Willits Grade lumber spill, and other news from November 1948 – Ukiah Daily Journal

Posted: at 4:26 am

Mendocino County history: Willits Grade lumber spill, and other news from November 1948  Ukiah Daily Journal

See more here:

Mendocino County history: Willits Grade lumber spill, and other news from November 1948 - Ukiah Daily Journal

Posted in History | Comments Off on Mendocino County history: Willits Grade lumber spill, and other news from November 1948 – Ukiah Daily Journal

The Renaissance Run: Bruce Boudreau Named 14th Head Coach in Franchise History On This Day 15 Years Ago – NoVa Caps

Posted: at 4:26 am

The Renaissance Run: Bruce Boudreau Named 14th Head Coach in Franchise History On This Day 15 Years Ago  NoVa Caps

Read the rest here:

The Renaissance Run: Bruce Boudreau Named 14th Head Coach in Franchise History On This Day 15 Years Ago - NoVa Caps

Posted in History | Comments Off on The Renaissance Run: Bruce Boudreau Named 14th Head Coach in Franchise History On This Day 15 Years Ago – NoVa Caps

Daemen University to Host Free Screening of Childfree by Choice Film

Posted: at 4:25 am

BUFFALO, N.Y. The Center for Biological Diversity will host a free screening of My So-Called Selfish Life, directed by Therese Shechter, a documentary that examines the choice to be childfree and the importance of reproductive rights and justice. The screening will be held at Daemen University and will be followed by a Q&A and panel discussion about the relationship between reproductive freedom and the environment.

We need to talk about family planning and choosing to be childfree if were going to reduce the pressure our growing population puts on the planet, said Sarah Baillie, population and sustainability organizer at the Center. Here in the United States, each person has an outsized environmental impact. Having one less child can save about 60 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

What: Screening of My So-Called Selfish Life

When: Oct. 25, 7 p.m. 9 p.m.

Where: Daemen University, 4380 Main St, Amherst, NY, Schenck Hall Room 107

Who: In addition to the film screening, there will be a panel discussion with Sarah Baillie, population and sustainability organizer at the Center for Biological Diversity, and students, staff and faculty from Daemen University.

Register to attend the event here: https://1025flim.eventbrite.com

Background

The Center for Biological Diversitys Population and Sustainability program addresses the impacts of human population pressure and destructive consumption and production on wildlife and the environment. We fight for solutions that advance justice, equity, health, and a compassionate world where both people and wildlife can thrive.

For more information or to watch the film trailer, visit https://bit.ly/CBDcampusfilmtour.

More here:

Daemen University to Host Free Screening of Childfree by Choice Film

Posted in Childfree | Comments Off on Daemen University to Host Free Screening of Childfree by Choice Film

Canadian federalism – Wikipedia

Posted: at 4:24 am

Federal systems of Canada

Canadian federalism (French: fdralisme canadien) involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

Canada is a federation with eleven components: the national Government of Canada and ten provincial governments. All eleven governments derive their authority from the Constitution of Canada. There are also three territorial governments in the far north, which exercise powers delegated by the federal parliament, and municipal governments which exercise powers delegated by the province or territory. Each jurisdiction is generally independent from the others in its realm of legislative authority.[1] The division of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments is based on the principle of exhaustive distribution: all legal issues are assigned to either the federal Parliament or the provincial Legislatures.

The division of powers is set out in the Constitution Act, 1867 (originally called the British North America Act, 1867), a key document in the Constitution of Canada. Some amendments to the division of powers have been made in the past century and a half, but the 1867 Act still sets out the basic framework of the federal and provincial legislative jurisdictions.

The federal nature of the Canadian constitution was a response to the colonial-era diversity of the Maritimes and the Province of Canada, particularly the sharp distinction between the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada and the English-speaking inhabitants of Upper Canada and the Maritimes. John A. Macdonald,[2] Canada's first prime minister, originally favoured a unitary system; later, after witnessing the carnage of the American Civil War, he supported a federal system to avoid similar violent conflicts.[3]

The foundations of Canadian federalism were laid at the Quebec Conference of 1864. The Quebec Resolutions were a compromise between those who wanted sovereignty vested in the federal government and those who wanted it vested in the provinces. The compromise based the federation on the constitution of the British Empire, under which the legal sovereignty of imperial power was modified by the conventions of colonial responsible government, making colonies of settlement (such as those of British North America) self-governing in domestic affairs. A lengthy political process ensued before the Quebec Resolutions became the British North America Act of 1867. This process was dominated by John A. Macdonald, who joined British officials in attempting to make the federation more centralized than that envisaged by the Resolutions.

The resulting constitution was couched in more centralist terms than intended. As prime minister, Macdonald tried to exploit this discrepancy to impose his centralist ideal against chief opponent Oliver Mowat. In a series of political battles and court cases from 1872 to 1896,[a] Mowat reversed Macdonald's early victories and entrenched the co-ordinated sovereignty which he saw in the Quebec Resolutions.[6] In 1888, Edward Blake summarized that view: "[It is] a federal as distinguished from a legislative union, but a union composed of several existing and continuing entities ... [The provinces are] not fractions of a unit but units of a multiple. The Dominion is the multiple and each province is a unit of that multiple ..."[7] The accession of Wilfrid Laurier as prime minister inaugurated a new phase of constitutional consensus, marked by a more-egalitarian relationship between the jurisdictions. The federal government's quasi-imperial powers of disallowance and reservation, which Macdonald abused in his efforts to impose a centralised government, fell into disuse.

During World War I the federal Crown's power was extended with the introduction of income taxes and passage of the War Measures Act, the scope of which was determined by several court cases.[b] The constitution's restrictions of parliamentary power were affirmed in 1919 when, in the Initiatives and Referendums Reference, a Manitoba act providing for direct legislation by way of initiatives and referendums was ruled unconstitutional by the Privy Council on the grounds that a provincial viceroy (even one advised by responsible ministers) could not permit "the abrogation of any power which the Crown possesses through a person directly representing it".[nb 11] Social and technological changes also worked their way into constitutional authority; the Radio Reference found that federal jurisdiction extended to broadcasting,[nb 12] and the Aeronautics Reference found the same for aeronautics.[nb 13]

In 1926, the KingByng Affair resulted in a constitutional crisis which was the impetus for changes in the relationship between the governor general and the prime minister. Although its key aspects were political in nature, its constitutional aspects continue to be debated.[8] One result was the Balfour Declaration issued later that year, whose principles were eventually codified in the Statute of Westminster 1931. It, and the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, gave the federal parliament the ability to make extraterritorial laws and abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Criminal appeals were abolished in 1933,[na 1] but civil appeals continued until 1949.[na 2] The last Privy Council ruling of constitutional significance occurred in 1954, in Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited.[nb 14] After that, the Supreme Court of Canada became the final court of appeal.

In 1937, Lieutenant Governor of Alberta John C. Bowen refused to give Royal Assent to three Legislative Assembly of Alberta bills. Two would have put the province's banks under the control of the provincial government; the third, the Accurate News and Information Act, would have forced newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories the provincial cabinet considered "inaccurate". All three bills were later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Alberta Statutes, which was upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.[nb 15]

World War II's broader scope required passage of the National Resources Mobilization Act to supplement the powers in the War Measures Act to pursue the national war effort. The extent to which wartime federal power could expand was further clarified in the Chemicals Reference (which held that Orders in Council under the War Measures Act were equivalent to acts of parliament)[nb 16] and the Wartime Leasehold Regulations Reference, which held that wartime regulations could displace provincial jurisdiction for the duration of an emergency.[nb 17] Additional measures were required in order to secure control of the economy during that time. Jurisdiction over unemployment insurance was transferred permanently to the federal sphere;[na 3] the provinces surrendered their power to levy succession duties and personal and corporate income taxes for the duration of the war (and for one year afterwards) under the Wartime Tax Rental Agreement;[9] and labour relations were centralized under federal control with the Wartime Labour Relations Regulations (lasting until 1948), in which the provinces ceded their jurisdiction over all labour issues.[10]

Canada emerged from the war with better cooperation between the federal and provincial governments. This led to a welfare state, a government-funded health care system and the adoption of Keynesian economics. In 1951 section 94A was added to the British North America Act, 1867 to allow the Canadian parliament to provide for pensions.[na 4] This was extended in 1964 to allow supplementary benefits, including disability and survivors' benefits.[na 5] The era saw an increase in First Ministers' Conferences to resolve federal-provincial issues. The Supreme Court of Canada became the court of final appeal after the 1949 abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and parliament received the power to amend the constitution, limited to non-provincial matters and subject to other constraints.[na 6]

1961 saw the last instance of a lieutenant governor reserving a bill passed by a provincial legislature. Frank Lindsay Bastedo, Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan, withheld Royal Assent and reserved Bill 5, An Act to Provide for the Alteration of Certain Mineral Contracts, to the Governor-in-Council for review. According to Bastedo, "[T]his is a very important bill affecting hundreds of mineral contracts. It raises implications which throw grave doubts of the legislation being in the public interest. There is grave doubt as to its validity". The act was upheld in an Order in Council by the federal government.[11][na 7]

Parliament passed the Canadian Bill of Rights, the first codification of rights by the federal government. Prime Minister Lester Pearson obtained passage of major social programs, including universal health care (a federal-provincial cost-sharing program), the Canada Pension Plan and Canada Student Loans. Quebec's Quiet Revolution encouraged increased administrative decentralization in Canada, with Quebec often opting out of federal initiatives and instituting its own (such as the Quebec Pension Plan). The Quebec sovereignty movement led to the victory of the Parti Qubcois in the 1976 Quebec election, prompting consideration of further loosening ties with the rest of Canada; this was rejected in a 1980 referendum.

During the premiership of Pierre Trudeau, the federal government became more centralist. Canada experienced "conflictual federalism" from 1970 to 1984, generating tensions with Quebec and other provinces. The National Energy Program and other petroleum disputes sparked bitterness in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland toward the federal government.[12]

Although Canada achieved full status as a sovereign nation in the Statute of Westminster 1931, there was no consensus about how to amend the constitution; attempts such as the 1965 FultonFavreau formula and the 1971 Victoria Charter failed to receive unanimous approval from both levels of government. When negotiations with the provinces again stalled in 1980, Trudeau threatened to take the case for patriation to the British parliament "[without] bothering to ask one premier". According to the federal cabinet and Crown counsel, if the British Crown (in council, in parliament, and on the bench) exercised sovereignty over Canada, it would do so only at the request of the federal ministers.[13]

Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec posed reference questions to their respective courts of appeal, in which five other provinces intervened in support. In his ruling, Justice Joseph O'Sullivan of the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the federal government's position was incorrect; the constitutionally-entrenched principle of responsible government meant that "Canada had not one responsible government but eleven."[13] Officials in the United Kingdom indicated that the British parliament was under no obligation to fulfill a request for legal changes desired by Trudeau, particularly if Canadian convention was not followed.[14] All rulings were appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a decision later known as the Patriation Reference, the court ruled that such a convention existed but did not prevent the federal parliament from attempting to amend the constitution without provincial consent and it was not the role of the courts to enforce constitutional conventions.

The Canadian parliament asked the British parliament to approve the Constitution Act, 1982, which it did in passage of the Canada Act 1982. This resulted in the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the transfer of constitutional amendment to a Canadian framework and the addition of section 92A to the Constitution Act, 1867, giving the provinces more jurisdiction over their natural resources.

The Progressive Conservative Party under Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney favoured the devolution of power to the provinces, culminating in the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. After merging in 2003 with the heavily devolutionist Canadian Alliance, the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has maintained the same stance. When Harper was appointed prime minister in 2006, the frequency of First Ministers' conferences declined significantly; inter-provincial cooperation increased with meetings of the Council of the Federation, established by the provincial premiers, in 2003.

After the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty, Prime Minister Jean Chrtien limited the ability of the federal government to spend money in areas under provincial jurisdiction. In 1999 the federal government and all provincial governments except Quebec's agreed to the Social Union Framework Agreement, which promoted common standards for social programmes across Canada.[15] Former Prime Minister Paul Martin used the phrase "asymmetrical federalism" to describe this arrangement.[16][17] The Supreme Court upholds the concepts of flexible federalism (where jurisdictions overlap) and cooperative federalism (where they can favourably interact),[18] as noted in Reference re Securities Act.

As a federal monarchy, the Canadian Crown is present in all jurisdictions in the country,[nb 18] with the headship of state a part of all equally.[19] Sovereignty is conveyed not by the governor general or federal parliament, but through the Crown itself as a part of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Canada's 11 (one federal and 10 provincial) legal jurisdictions; linking the governments into a federal state,[20] the Crown is "divided" into 11 "crowns".[21] The fathers of the Canadian Confederation viewed the constitutional monarchy as a bulwark against potential fracturing of the Canadian federation,[22] and the Crown remains central to Canadian federalism.[23]

The federal-provincial distribution of legislative powers (also known as the division of powers) defines the scope of the federal and provincial legislatures. These have been identified as exclusive to the federal or provincial jurisdictions or shared by all. Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, lists the major federal parliament powers, based on the concepts of peace, order, and good government; while Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 enumerates those of the provincial governments.

The act puts remedial legislation on education rights, uniform laws relating to property and civil rights (in all provinces other than Quebec), creation of a general court of appeal and other courts "for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada," and implementing obligations arising from foreign treaties, all under the purview of the federal legislature in Section 91. Some aspects of the Supreme Court of Canada were elevated to constitutional status in 1982.[nb 19]

The act lists the powers of the provincial parliaments (subject to the federal parliament's authority to regulate inter-provincial movement) in Section 92. These powers include the exploration, development and export to other provinces of non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy. Education is under provincial jurisdiction, subject to the rights of separate schools.

Old-age pensions, agriculture and immigration are shared within federal and provincial jurisdictions. One prevails over the other, however: for pensions, federal legislation will not displace provincial laws, and for agriculture and immigration it is the reverse.[why?]

The Constitution Act, 1871 allowed parliament to govern any territories not forming part of any province, and the Statute of Westminster 1931, gave parliament the ability to pass extraterritorial laws.

To rationalize how each jurisdiction may use its authority, certain doctrines have been devised by the courts: pith and substance[definition needed], including the nature of any ancillary powers and the colourability of legislation[clarification needed]; double aspect; paramountcy; inter-jurisdictional immunity; the living tree; the purposive approach, and charter compliance[definition needed] (most notably through the Oakes test). Additionally, there is the implied Bill of Rights.

Jurisdiction over Crown property is divided between the provincial legislatures and the federal parliament, with the key provisions Sections 108, 109, and 117 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Public works are the property of the federal Crown, and natural resources are within the purview of the provinces.[nb 20] Title to such property is not vested in one jurisdiction or another, however, since the Canadian Crown is indivisible.[25] Section 109 has been given a particularly-broad meaning;[26] provincial legislation regulating labour used to harvest and the disposal of natural resources does not interfere with federal trade and commerce power,[nb 21][nb 22] and royalties have been held to cover the law relating to escheats.[nb 23] Canada cannot unilaterally create Indian reserves, since the transfer of such lands requires federal and provincial approval by Order in Council (although discussion exists about whether this is sound jurisprudence).[26][nb 24]

The provincial power to manage Crown land did not initially extend to Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan when they were created from part of the Northwest Territories, since the land was vested in the federal Crown. It was vacated on some land (the Railway Belt and the Peace River Block) by British Columbia when it entered the confederation. Title to this land was not vested in those provinces until the passage of the Natural Resources Acts in 1930. The power is not absolute, however; provincial Crown land may be regulated or expropriated for federal purposes.[nb 25][nb 26] The administration of crown land is also subject to the rights of First Nations[nb 27] (since they are a relevant interest),[nb 28] and provincial power "is burdened by the Crown obligations toward the Aboriginal people in question".[nb 29] Debate exists about whether such burdens apply in the same manner in the Western provinces under the Natural Resources Acts.[28]

Management of offshore resources is complex; although management of the beds of internal waters is vested in the provincial Crowns, management of beds of territorial seas is vested in the federal Crown (with management of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone).[nb 30][nb 31][29] The beds and islands of the waters between Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia have been declared the property of the Crown in right of British Columbia.[nb 32] Federal-provincial management agreements have been implemented concerning offshore petroleum resources in the areas around Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.[na 8][na 9]

Taxation is a power of the federal and provincial legislatures; provincial taxation is more restricted, in accordance with sections 92(2) and 92(9) of the Constitution Act, 1867. In Allard Contractors Ltd. v. Coquitlam (District), provincial legislatures may levy an indirect fee as part of a valid regulatory scheme.[nb 33] Grard La Forest observed obiter dicta that section 92(9) (with provincial powers over property and civil rights and matters of a local or private nature) allows for the levying of license fees even if they constitute indirect taxation.[30]

Parliament has the power to spend money on public debt and property. Although the Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled directly about constitutional limits on federal spending power,[nb 34][31] parliament can transfer payments to the provinces.[c] This arises from the 1937 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Unemployment Insurance Reference, where Lord Atkin observed: "Assuming the Dominion has collected by means of taxation a fund, it by no means follows that any legislation which disposes of it is necessarily within Dominion competence ... If on the true view of the legislation it is found that in reality in pith and substance the legislation invades civil rights within the Province, or in respect of other classes of subjects otherwise encroaches upon the provincial field, the legislation will be invalid".[nb 36] In Re Canada Assistance Plan, Justice Sopinka held that the withholding of federal money previously granted to fund a matter within provincial jurisdiction does not amount to the regulation of that matter.[nb 37]

Much distribution of power has been ambiguous, leading to disputes which have been decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and (after 1949) the Supreme Court of Canada. The nature of the Canadian constitution was described by the Privy Council in 1913 as not truly federal (unlike the United States and Australia); although the British North America Act, 1867, states in its preamble that the colonies had expressed "their desire to be federally united into one Dominion", "the natural and literal interpretation of the word [federal] confines its application to cases in which these States, while agreeing on a measure of delegation, yet in the main continue to preserve their original Constitutions". The Privy Council determined that the Fathers of Confederation desired a "general Government charged with matters of common interest, and new and merely local Governments for the Provinces". Matters other than those listed in the British North America Act, 1867, as the responsibility of the federal or provincial parliaments fell to the federal legislature (the reverse of the arrangement between the federal and state congresses in the United States).[nb 38]

The preamble of Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "It shall be lawful for the Queen ... to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces". In addition to assigning powers not stated elsewhere (which has been narrowly interpreted), this has led to the creation of the national-emergency and national-concern doctrines.

The national-emergency doctrine was described by Mr Justice Beetz in Reference re Anti-Inflation Act.[nb 39][d][e] The national-concern doctrine is governed by the principles stated by Mr Justice Le Dain in R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd..[nb 41][f]

The federal government is partially limited by powers assigned to the provincial legislatures; for example, the Canadian constitution created broad provincial jurisdiction over direct taxation and property and civil rights. Many disputes between the two levels of government revolve around conflicting interpretations of the meaning of these powers.

By 1896, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council arrived at a method of interpretation, known as the "four-departments doctrine", in which jurisdiction over a matter is determined in the following order:

By the 1930s, as noted in the Fish Canneries Reference and Aeronautics Reference, the division of responsibilities between federal and provincial jurisdictions was summarized by Lord Sankey.[g]

Although the Statute of Westminster 1931 declared that the Parliament of Canada had extraterritorial jurisdiction, the provincial legislatures did not achieve similar status. According to s. 92, "In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws ...".

If a provincial law affects the rights of individuals outside the province:

In The Queen (Man.) v. Air Canada, it was held that the s. 92(2) power providing for "direct taxation within the province" does not extend to taxing sales on flights passing over (or through) a province, but the question of how far provincial jurisdiction can extend into a province's airspace was left undecided.[nb 44] However, the property and civil rights power does allow for determining rules with respect to conflict of laws in civil matters.[na 10]

Federal jurisdiction arises in several circumstances:

The gap approach, employed sparingly, identifies areas of jurisdiction arising from oversights by the drafters of the constitution; for example, federal jurisdiction to incorporate companies is inferred from the power provinces have under Section 92 for "The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects".

Section 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provided for laws in effect at the time of Confederation to continue until repealed or altered by the appropriate legislative authority. Similar provisions were included in the terms of union of other territories that were subsequently incorporated into Canada.

The uniformity of laws in some areas of federal jurisdiction was significantly delayed. Offences under the Criminal Code were not made uniform until 1892, when common-law criminal offences were abolished.[33] Divorce law was not made uniform until 1968, Canadian maritime law not until 1971 and marriage law not until 2005. Provisions of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, adopted in 1865 by the former Province of Canada, affecting federal jurisdiction continued to be in force in Quebec (if they had not been displaced by other federal Acts) until their repeal on 15 December 2004.[na 11][34]

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, "our Constitution is based on an allocation of exclusive powers to both levels of government, not concurrent powers, although these powers are bound to interact in the realities of the life of our Constitution."[nb 45] Chief Justice Dickson observed the complexity of that interaction:

The history of Canadian constitutional law has been to allow for a fair amount of interplay and indeed overlap between federal and provincial powers. It is true that doctrines like interjurisdictional and Crown immunity and concepts like "watertight compartments" qualify the extent of that interplay. But it must be recognized that these doctrines and concepts have not been the dominant tide of constitutional doctrines; rather they have been an undertow against the strong pull of pith and substance, the aspect doctrine and, in recent years, a very restrained approach to concurrency and paramountcy issues.[nb 46]

Notable examples include:

In 1899, Lord Watson asserted during the argument in CPR v Bonsecours[nb 54] that neither the federal parliament nor the provincial legislatures could give legislative authority to the other level. Subsequent attempts to dovetail federal and provincial legislation to achieve certain ends met with difficulty, such as an attempt by Saskatchewan to ensure enforcement of a federal statute[na 15] by enacting a complementary Act[na 16] declaring that the federal Act would continue in force under provincial authority if it was ruled ultra vires. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled a federal and provincial Act ultra vires, voiding both as an attempt by the province to vest powers in parliament unauthorized by the BNA Act.[nb 55]

The matter was addressed in 1950 by the Supreme Court, which held ultra vires a proposed Nova Scotia Act which would have authorized the inter-delegation of legislative and taxation authority between Parliament and the Nova Scotia legislature.[nb 56] In that decision, Justice Rand explained the distinction between delegation to a subordinate body and that to a legislative body.[h]

Later attempts to achieve federal-provincial coordination have succeeded with other types of legislative schemes involving:

To understand how treaties can enter Canadian law, three significant cases must be considered:the Aeronautics Reference, the Radio Reference and the Labour Conventions Reference.[nb 58]Although the reasoning behind the judgments is complex,[44] it is considered to break down as follows:

Although the Statute of Westminster 1931 had made Canada fully independent in governing its foreign affairs, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that s. 132 did not evolve to take that into account. As noted by Lord Atkin at the end of the judgment,

It must not be thought that the result of this decision is that Canada is incompetent to legislate in performance of treaty obligations. In totality of legislative powers, Dominion and Provincial together, she is fully equipped. But the legislative powers remain distributed and if in the exercise of her new functions derived from her new international status she incurs obligations they must, so far as legislation be concerned when they deal with provincial classes of subjects, be dealt with by the totality of powers, in other words by co-operation between the Dominion and the Provinces. While the ship of state now sails on larger ventures and into foreign waters she still retains the watertight compartments which are an essential part of her original structure.

This case left undecided the extent of federal power to negotiate, sign and ratify treaties dealing with areas under provincial jurisdiction, and has generated extensive debate about complications introduced in implementing Canada's subsequent international obligations;[45][46] the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated in several dicta that it might revisit the issue in an appropriate case.[47]

Outside the questions of ultra vires and compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are absolute limits on what the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures can legislate. According to the Constitution Act, 1867:

While the Parliament of Canada has the ability to bind the Crown in right of Canada or of any province, the converse is not true for the provincial legislatures, as "[p]rovincial legislation cannot proprio vigore [ie, of its own force] take away or abridge any privilege of the Crown in right of the Dominion."[nb 62]

Read more:

Canadian federalism - Wikipedia

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Canadian federalism – Wikipedia

U.P. bags top honours at PMAY-U Awards 2021 – The Hindu

Posted: at 4:24 am

October 20, 2022 08:43 pm | Updated October 21, 2022 12:37 am IST - New Delhi/Rajkot

Hardeep Singh Puris comments came on the sidelines of the PMAY-U Awards 2021.| Photo Credit: Reuters

Over half the homes sanctioned under the BJP-led Centres flagship Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana - Urban (PMAY-U) housing scheme have been delivered and the rest are under various stages of completion, Union Minister of Housing & Urban Affairs Hardeep Singh Puri said on Wednesday.

Mr. Puris comments came on the sidelines of the PMAY-U Awards 2021 scheduled annually to recognise the contribution of States, Union Territories and urban local bodies with regard to the implementation of the scheme in Rajkot.

In the awards, Uttar Pradesh bagged the first position followed by Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu at second and third place, respectively.

Poll-bound Gujarat saw five special category awards for performance related to Affordable Rental Housing Complexes and Convergence with other Missions coming its way.

Madhya Pradesh got three special category awards followed by Jammu and Kashmir, which was adjudged the Best Performing UT alongside Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu.

PMAY-U scheme is aimed at confronting and tiding over the shortage of housing facilities in urban India for beneficiaries under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), Low-Income Groups (LIGs) and Middle Income Groups (MIGs) categories.

According to Mr. Puri, 1.23 crore houses were sanctioned under the scheme of which 64 lakh over 52% have already been completed and delivered while the rest were at various stages of completion.

PMAY-U, he added, had emerged as the largest housing scheme in the world since its launch seven years ago in June, 2015 with the number of houses sanctioned under it so far 1.23 crore 9 times the number that was achieved in the 10 years of the previous regime between 2004 and 2014.

PMAY-U, Mr. Puri said, was a perfect example of the spirit of co-operative and competitive federalism with all States across the country participating in it enthusiastically.

Besides having the power to appraise and approve housing projects, all the States also had healthy competition with each other to ensure that their State came on top. The ultimate winner, he added, had been the people, and especially those who belonged to the vulnerable EWS and LIG sections of society.

Prior to the award ceremony on Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that more than 3 crore pucca houses had been given to the poor in villages and cities across the country in the last 8 years.

As many as 10 lakh among these had been approved for the poor in the cities of Gujarat, of which 7 lakh has already been completed.

Follow this link:

U.P. bags top honours at PMAY-U Awards 2021 - The Hindu

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on U.P. bags top honours at PMAY-U Awards 2021 – The Hindu

Netflix Removed Kanye’s ‘Harmful Alt-Right Beliefs’ From David …

Posted: at 4:22 am

Thanks for signing up!

Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app

Fallen billionaire and rap mogul Kanye West, also known as Ye, reportedly spewed controversial and far-right rhetoric during a 2019 interview with David Letterman that was later removed before airing on Netflix.

The interview aired in late May 2019 on the second season of Letterman's "My Next Guest Needs No Introduction," in which Ye defended Donald Trump supporters, discussed his mental health issues, and talked about his "beef" with music artist Drake.

While it was shot in January 2019 at the Nate Holden Performing Arts Center in Los Angeles, several audience members recently told TheWrapthe version of the interview that appeared on Netflix left out some key moments including Ye victim-blaming Rihanna for being a survivor of domestic violence and saying Trump supporters were treated like Nazis.

Ye also reportedly said he feared becoming "MeToo-ed" like an unidentified friend in the music industry. Noah Reich, an audience member at the taping, told TheWrap that Ye spoke about a powerful group within Hollywood that brought the #MeToo movement into being. Reich believed he was referring to Jewish people.

At certain points, Reich said he and other audience members shouted at West and questioned his remarks. When Ye claimed that Trump followers are treated like Nazis, Reich said he responded aloud with "because they are Nazis" before receiving applause.

Ye and Letterman continued the interview without acknowledging the audience's remarks, Reich said.

"It was shocking to see that Kanye West could share harmful alt-right beliefs, conspiracy theory after conspiracy, and misogynistic beliefs about women for the majority of the interview and end up with an edit that removed all those items in favor of celebrity fluff content," Reich told TheWrap.

An audience member identified as Larry F told the Wrap that he's "not sure what legalities they're dealing with" but he didn't find the Netflix episode to be "an honest assessment of what went on that night."

Worldwide Pants, Inc., Letterman's production company, told TheWrap that "the producers went to great lengths to accurately present" West's viewpoints. The production company, which partnered with another called Zero Point Zero Production Inc. to produce the show, added that "unfounded attacks on specific individuals are not included out of privacy, accuracy, and legal concerns."

Netflix, The Wrap said, argued a similar point and maintained that parts of the interview were condensed for length.

On October 28, writer and political commentator Elad Nehorai shed light on the situation in a Substack, citing an anonymous audience member. "The most harmful part of this, and this should be the focus, is that David Letterman did nothing, and that most of it didn't air," Nehorai wrote.

Within the past month, Ye has called Black Lives Matter "a scam," said in a deleted tweet that he was "going death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE," and appeared on The Brilliant Idiots podcast saying that his ex-wife Kim Kardashian "is out here fucking a white boy [Pete Davidson] with a 10-inch penis."

Insider was unable to confirm that TheWrap's sources were in the audience. Representatives for Netflix, Worldwide Pants, and Zero Point Zero Production did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. Reich was not immediately reachable for comment.

More:

Netflix Removed Kanye's 'Harmful Alt-Right Beliefs' From David ...

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Netflix Removed Kanye’s ‘Harmful Alt-Right Beliefs’ From David …

Where Are All the Women on This Alt-Right, Anti-Choice, Toxic …

Posted: at 4:22 am

The first reviews of the recently launched, self-branded conservative dating app, The Right Stuff are in Some common reviewer complaints include that the app is short on women and that answering a profile prompt about January 6 led to contact from law enforcement. Gizmodo, 10/5/22

- - -

I like to think Im a pretty normal, conservative-leaning guy who believes LGBT people are possessed by Satan, all abortions should be punishable by public stoning, and vaccines were invented by Jews to make mens foreskins fall off so that all guys with penises will be circumcised and forced to convert to Judaism. You know, just center-of-the-road right-wing stuff.

But Ive always had a hard time meeting women on dating apps, maybe because liberal women have been brainwashed by Queer Eye to believe that men should be able to clear the unrealistically high bar of having the basic ability to regulate their emotions and be able to make a decent omelet.

So when I heard about a new dating app called The Right Stuff, aimed at helping conservatives meet each other (and thus out-procreate the minorities trying to replace us), you can imagine how excited I was to meet the Q to my Anon. But then I opened the app and hardly saw any women, and I couldnt help but wonder: Where are all the alt-right, anti-choice, male-subservient women on this dating app?

Look, Im not a picky guy. All Im looking for is a woman who is intelligent, funny, and attractive, who believes God created women to help men with stuff theyre naturally bad at, like empathy, and who enjoys shooting wild animals from a helicopter. So where are the millions of women I imagine fit that exact description if not on this app?

Its not like my political views are that out there. I just happen to subscribe to the traditional belief that women belong in three places: the home, the home goods section of HomeGoods, and Home Depot (but only the paint department, because the rest of the store is strictly guy territory). So its strange that every time I sign into this app, the only people I see are like-minded guys and a woman who claims to be Marjorie Taylor Greenes cute younger sister, but who Im pretty sure is a sexbot. Is it really that difficult to find a woman whose only ambitions in life are to gratify me sexually at my whim, be a vessel for my offspring, and then die? Is that so much to ask?

I want what everyone else in life wants: someone to wake up in the morning next to, someone to bathe and spoon-feed me when Im old (and also when Im young and middle-aged), and someone to hold my hand while we commit heinous acts of domestic terrorism against people whose beliefs dont align perfectly with ours. But I guess some women would rather be left alone to snuggle under a warm blanket while sipping mulled cider, watching Gilmore Girls, and petting their cat. Alas, some people just choose to act against their own best interests.

Ive always subscribed to that age-old conservative aphorism a wife is like a mother whos your same age. Someday I hope to meet a woman who wants to be my wife-mother, which I would think would be every womans dream.

In the meantime, I guess Ill go back to scrolling Tinder and Hinge, since The Right Stuff is mostly just ads for camo gaiters and dick pills. I also have to respond to the email I got from the FBI. Apparently bragging about pepper spraying women police officers on January 6 isnt the pickup line I thought it would be.

See the original post here:

Where Are All the Women on This Alt-Right, Anti-Choice, Toxic ...

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Where Are All the Women on This Alt-Right, Anti-Choice, Toxic …

Forbes Gets Punked – Labels FTX Former CEO’s Girlfriend a "New Darling …

Posted: at 4:22 am

Forbes got punked big time.

The once-conservative publication Forbes released a story yesterday on the girlfriend of FTXs former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, Caroline Ellison who was the CEO of Alameda, the investment arm of FTX.

Instapundit reports on what Forbes shared which has now been edited:

Heres the passage from the article on how Ellison is a new darling of the alt-right:

TRENDING: BREAKING: "SEE YOU IN COURT" - Arizona Attorney General Nominee Abe Hamadeh Files FIRST Lawsuit Contesting Rigged 2022 Election In Arizona

In recent days, Ellison has faced a barrage of particularly nasty criticism from crypto boosters who blame her for overseeing the downfall of Alameda. But amid the vitriol she has found some defenders in an unlikely group of people who have celebrated the musings about race science and imperialism on a blog she allegedly wrote in college. Some of her defenders, who call her Queen Caroline, are followers ofCurtis Yarvin, a neoreactionary political theorist and far right darling. Many of the people who have flocked to Ellisons defense gather on Urbit, a peer-to-peer platform created by Yarvin, one of her online supporters toldForbes. They think Ellison was set up to be the fall person, and claim that former co-CEO Sam Trabucco, who they derisively call Sam Tabasco, is behind Alamedas implosion. Trabucco didnt respond to multiple requests for comment.

I definitely think shes innocent, one said. I think Caroline can be saved.

The Tweet Forbes shared is still up:

Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison is a math whiz who loves Harry Potter and taking big risks. She is also one of the supporting players in Sam Bankman-Frieds FTX catastrophe and a new darling of the alt-right.

Read more: https://t.co/15QghRLzNz pic.twitter.com/FV2hGxnOGc

Forbes (@Forbes) November 18, 2022

The information from the tweet came from a source that was punking Forbes.

This is amazing. The source for this alt-right darling on Urbit thing was trolling them & is now tweeting about it. Were at Rahul Ligma levels journalizm here. https://t.co/N8ExI03ytU

jonstokes.(eth|com) (@jonst0kes) November 19, 2022

Forbes significantly revised its article and issued a pathetic, non-descriptive one-sentence correction at the very, very end without admitting what happened.

Forbes used to be a conservative publication but it has changed over the past few years to the point where it now focuses on stories like this one. Sad.

See the rest here:

Forbes Gets Punked - Labels FTX Former CEO's Girlfriend a "New Darling ...

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Forbes Gets Punked – Labels FTX Former CEO’s Girlfriend a "New Darling …

Alt-Right Picks Wrong Side in Dutch Farm Crisis

Posted: at 4:22 am

Agrifirm animal feed factory in Veghel, the Netherlands (Brabants Dagblad/Domien van der Meijden)

The international alt-right has picked the wrong side in the Netherlands farm crisis.

Former American president Donald Trump, French National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, Danish climate-change sceptic Bjrn Lomborg and media like Breitbart, The Federalist, Fox News and The Spectator may think theyre backing the little guy against out-of-touch political elites; theyre doing the bidding of Big Ag.

In Areo Magazine, I point out the farmers protests against the Dutch government are funded by three of the largest animal feed companies in the world as well as dairy and meat processors. They stand to lose the most from a reduction in livestock farming.

The Netherlands is the largest meat exporter in Europe and the fifth-largest dairy exporter in the world. To produce so much meat, milk and cheese, it needs almost as many cows and pigs as people: 16 million. The country also has 100 million chickens and with it the highest livestock density in the world.

Animal manure is the Netherlands main source of ammonia pollution. In the EU, only Malta has higher emissions per hectare.

Manure can be used as fertilizer, but too much of it kills the very microbes in the soil that make it fertile. It also seeps into the groundwater, which farmers use to irrigate their crops and which Dutch people drink, causing eye and nose irritation and lung damage in people and animals.

Ammonia is especially dangerous to plants, insects and birds in conservation areas. The Netherlands has lost 70 percent of its insect population in the last thirty years. It has been in constant violation of EU protections for birds and habitats since regulations were introduced in the 1990s.

Piecemeal reforms and technologies like air purifiers have reduced emissions by 65 percent from a peak in the 1990s.

To cut emissions further, the government has proposed to buy out or relocate one in three livestock farmers, or 11,000. Another 17,000 would need to downsize.

Farmers argue thats impossible as long as they dont fetch a better price for dairy and meat. In previous years, one in three didnt even earn a minimum wage.

Farms have grown as profit margins have narrowed. The average Dutch dairy farmer has gone from 62 to 108 cows in two decades, the average pig farmer from 900 to 3,400 pigs.

Many farmers werent able to scale up: 45,000 out of 97,000 quit in the same period.

Farmers have little bargaining power. Only a few companies sell animal feed, pesticides and milking robots. Five wholesalers have 80 percent of the market. Three in four dairy farmers work for FrieslandCampina.

The agro conglomerates make big profits. The companies that fund the farmers protests Agrifirm, De Heus and ForFarmers (animal feed), Royal A-ware (dairy) and Vandrie Group (beef and veal) had a combined turnover of 8.7 billion (1 percent of Dutch GDP) last year, when they made a profit of 212 million. Little wonder they dont want to change.

Its not just farmers who feel exploited: 64 percent say factory farming is a dead end. Cows and pigs live short and brutal lives. (Conditions for chickens have improved with an EU ban on battery cages and an increase in the sale of free-range eggs.)

A third never see daylight until they are transported to slaughter. The average pig lives on one square meter, the legal minimum. Boredom and overcrowding cause some pigs to become aggressive. Many farmers cut off the tails of piglets, so that they cannot be bitten off by adult pigs later in life. Dairy cows expire after six or seven years, when their natural life expectancy is fifteen to twenty years. 27 percent develop udder inflammation from overmilking. Falls and lameness are common among cows and pigs who sleep and walk on concrete floors, which is nearly all of them.

If thats how Trump, Le Pen, Lomborg, Breitbart, The Federalist, Fox News and The Spectator think farming should be done, let them say it. But stop it with the nonsense about plucky Dutch farmers standing up to a nefarious green agenda that was drafted in Brussels or Davos. (It wasnt.)

Click here to read the rest of my story in Areo.

The Atlantic Sentinel is supported by readers. You can make a donation on PayPal or subscribe to my newsletter on Substack for 5 (= $5) per month. Follow the Atlantic Sentinel on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or Tumblr.

View original post here:

Alt-Right Picks Wrong Side in Dutch Farm Crisis

Posted in Alt-right | Comments Off on Alt-Right Picks Wrong Side in Dutch Farm Crisis