In the us there are grey areas. In Canada they can just ignore it if they can convince a judge to say it doesn't apply, and the judges are political.

> In the us there are grey areas. In Canada they can just ignore it if they can convince a judge to say it doesn't apply

You realize that those are just two different ways of saying the exact same thing, right?

> and the judges are political.

While the judicial branch in the US is sometimes distinguished from the elected “political” branches, federal judges and especially thise of the highest court which serves as the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional interpretation are very much tied into partisan politics; if that hadn't been clear before, all doubt of that was erased during the Reagan Administration (continuing similarly thereafter), and the further heightened judicial political drama of the Obama and Trump Administrations has bolded and underlined that for anyone who still somehow had doubts.

>You realize that those are just two different ways of saying the exact same thing, right?

It's really not.

how does that interplay with the 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", where it seems the residual between positive grants and negative restrictions goes to the states/people?