Should've gotten some Canadian lawyers involved in GPL. Due to the combined heritage of English and French (Quebec) Canada has both Civil law (French) and Common Law (English).
(Approximately the same situation is true in the USA with Louisiana, whose state laws also have a form inherited or at least strongly influenced by the Napoleonic code, ultimately, but since harmonized to fit into a common law system.)
Didn't like, a third or more of the population just didn't sign it?
Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. It was desired (it still is) but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political, it is not regarded as a major impediment.
Keep in mind two-thirds is a qualified majority.
That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution.
> but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political
I mean, it's a political document... anything having to do with it will be political!
The US Constitution went into effect on ratification of 9 of 13 states. Virginia and New York were numbers 10 and 11, but ratified it before a government under the new constitution was elected. North Carolina waited about a year later to ratify it, and Rhode Island even several months after that (it ratified it only after the United States threatened to embargo them), and consequently were not part of the first government under the new constitution.
But they did end-up all signing in a relatively short timeframe.
Canada never declared independence from the UK. That's probably the difference in thinking. The constitution was not revolutionary. It was a reorganization, and that reorganization was carried out according to UK law (which was equivalent to Canadian law as a UK colony) at the time. The law did not require the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution at that time. In fact, the law allowed the UK parliament to simply rewrite Canada's constitution unilaterally. So they did, upon the request of the Canadian federal government after years of consultations in Canada to propose the amendments the UK rubber-stamped, when they renounced all further claim to that in 1982.
If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states.
Except it was a constitutional amendment. And the process to create such an amendment is described... in the Constitution itself, which, naturally, every state signed.
Per the established constitutional law operating in Canada in the 1980s, following the convention of the previous centuries, the government petitioned the UK government to amend the constitution yet again, this time moving the process of amendment to the Canadian legislatures and fully severing the connection.
Constitutional rule in Canada begins when the British first appear and have jurisdiction, as far back as the 1600s in the eastern parts of the country. It was never interrupted. The Crown has always reigned. 18th century treaties and proclamations in UK law are an inherited part of our unwritten constitutional body. It was simply a different historical course from the USA, but not fundamentally less democratic. IMO.
(Although I risk sounding like a mad Canadian nationalist at this point, I would note that under the modern constitutional system, Quebec could just exit the confederation. That is not a right of American states.)
I meant "political" in the sense of "it's a gesture designed to cause some political effect or to be used in the future for political negotiations" - maybe not the best word but couldn't think of a better one when writing that.
So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. (Long ago, Quebec's elected delegates did approve of the original Constitution Act in 1867.) Per the amendment formula, each province including Quebec has veto power over any further amendment that requires unanimous consent (affecting distribution of government powers, etc.) Which is now something of a stand-off. Getting an amendment that triggers that clause passed, seems all but impossible in contemporary Canada politically.
That sounds completely alien.
So does the US; Louisiana is America’s Quebec.
https://fsffrance.org/news/article2009-09-22.en.html
https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/6/v2/1655/A9A2... (Doesn't address France specifically.)