# data[].attributes.body
Canada government believes that the constitution is the rule and law. Nothing else matters.

# data[].attributes.body
Treaty based view is distinct from the Canadian Constitution, however, there are areas where they do intersect and interact. This view regards the Indigenous sovereignty is supreme over other laws in their own territory. However, in territory that is shared, the relation is managed through the treaties, and the Indigenous is not subject to the Canadian Constitution as the ultimate authority.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitution is the highest source of authority in Canada, and any power delegated under it shall be practiced in ways that align with the purpose and parameters of the constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Interpretation suggests that Indigenous rights do exist, but does not define their sovereignty. Although this can be problematic, interpretation from both sides is a way that compromise can be made and forward movement together can be made.

# data[].attributes.body
Recognition of First Nations sovereignty:

The treaty view, sees this as existing both in and outside the courts, above the federal government. They see this as their inherent right(s), within international law (treaties), outside of the Canadian Courts.

Constitutional arrangements between First Nations and the federal government:

The Treaty view sees this as the Courts not holding up their end of the bargain, and trying to take away some of the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. Treaties exist outside of Canadian Courts, as their own promise and system that existed before the courts.

# data[].attributes.body
Recognition of First Nations sovereignty:

The constitution view does not see this in a very independent light. To them, all levels of government are within the Canadian Courts, not outside of this, ergo First Nations sovereignty could exist, however, it would be below the federal government in terms of power, and would still exist within the Canada Courts system. This makes it not entirely sovereign.

Constitutional arrangements between First Nations and the federal government:

The constitutional view sees this as apart of the courts and as law, legitimate. They are trying to do what they think is fair while maintaining their power.

# data[].attributes.body
Treaties establish direct relationships between First Nations and the Crown, bypassing provincial authority in some cases, an example is within R. v. Badger affirmed that treaty rights supersede provincial laws

# data[].attributes.body
Section 35 recognizes Indigenous rights as "existing" but does not explicitly define sovereignty. Courts have interpreted these rights as inherent, meaning they arise from Indigenous peoples’ pre-colonial existence, not Crown grant.

# data[].attributes.body
Constition Based view- can be seen as modern day relations/ relation that as a country we would like to see

# data[].attributes.body
The Treaty-Based View, can be viewed as the past as its a relationship of two party that are seperate from each other.

# data[].attributes.body
The Treaty-based view treats Canada and First Nations as separate and equal entities united under a treaty for reciprocal benefit, similar to the Treaty of Paris between the USA and England and teh Treaty of Versailles between the Allies of WW1 and Germany. This I believe is a more true interpretation of a treaty.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution-based view places the traditions and laws of colonizers above the sovereignty of First Nations, reducing them from an equal nation to a subordinate

# data[].attributes.body
It is a relationship between Canada and the First Nations people, Canada's existing political structure (with divisions between federal and provincial governments) is less important

# data[].attributes.body
first nations sovereignty must supposedly fit into the already existing system of federalism established in Canada

# data[].attributes.body
Canada believes that the Crown's sovereignty should prevail over Indigenous sovereignty.