Constitutional history is strange: in the US, UI is deemed constitutional due to its compromise btwn federal $$ with state admin; in Canada, federally financed and administered UI is deemed UNconstitutional, which leads to one of the oddest amendments to the Can constitution... https://twitter.com/Claudia_Sahm/status/1351141580141441027

Yes, that's right, Canada's constitution has a specific carve-out just for for "unemployment insurance". Just check out section 91 (2a): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.html

As I (to my shame) just learned recently, the US still has this wildly splintered benefits system, which has been put on horrific display during covid. Canada's system has its problems as well, and they are NOT small: it's been systematically gutted since, basically, the 1970s.

Yes, at least one province has supplemented EI. (Quebec.) Nonetheless, would anyone claim that the centralized, federal administration of EI (it's current name) is a bad thing? I, for one, would want lots of changes to the program, but I wouldn't want to mess with that!

I wonder how advocates reacted to those court decisions then? And I wonder what makes a polity so committed to a prog that they'll undertake constitutional amend for it? Obviously moments like the depression provide openings... how many do you think we'll have in this moment?

No message here, just some random thoughts to give me a break from reading about the 1914 Finance Act! Good morning everyone!

Realizing I should have said 'was' in the first Tweet. Hopefully the tense is clear from the context.