While I am Canadian, I spent most of my life in the States. So, while I may not know much about Canadian law, I do know a bit more about American ones. ("American" being the colloquial referent to the United States only.)

All ten Amendments were restraints on Federal government - not on State governments.

Thus, the American Civil War, eh?

... no one except an Anglican is allowed to become a King of Canada.

As I said, and admit to being so civically poor, while I am a Canadian, I know very little about our laws. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, Canada is still under Crown Rule, is it not? Are we even allowed to have a king that's not British?

My whole point here is: we, the people of the "free" world, saddle ourselves with protections from our creations -- the so called governments -- so we may enjoy more freedom to do as we see fit. Just as the "Americans" have their Constitution agreed to in 1789, we Canadians have our Charter of Rights that we agreed to as well. (Please don't ask me when that was. I believe it was actually signed rather recently. And, I really don't care when.)

Is it not common law amongst (sp?) our lands that we are allowed these protections? That we must collectively permit our governments to follow the rules called laws on how to operate these respective governments, but also to specifically to protect us individuals being governed? Individuals who may be Papists, Jews, Protestants, homosexuals like Kathleen Wynne, or someone like me who is obsessed with taboo lovers? Or even those taboo lovers who might be obsessed with me? Is this not where the Magna Carta Libertatum began the human march to individualism?

From what little I can understand about us "northern" Americans called Canadians, isn't it true that any and all public lands are private property of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (yeah, I looked it up) and, as such, technically we are not allowed to step on it?

Not that I care, actually. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. (And yeah, I quote this a lot.) But, if I am required to "toe the line" by our government, shouldn't it be, likewise, required to do so?

It should be permitted, should I be an 8 year old little girl, to love any lover I so choose. If not... then to hell with obnoxious constitutions.