g_bambino Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 The only question would be whether it is $500 billion or $1 trillion as Six Nations claims...or somewhere in between. Or something substantially less. I'm sure whatever Six Nations has been paid by the Crown - provincial or federal, cash or services - over the last century+ would also be deducted from the accrued interest on this trust fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) So really you are both out to lunch on this one.The case is not a slam dunk. If it was SN would not be wasting time with negotiations. Facts of the case are ambiguous enough to allow the SCC to rule that SN has no claim at all. More importantly, the SCC does not rule in a vaccuum will take into account the political reaction to its ruling (it did this with the clarity act). It would know that such a huge judgement would unleash a backlash that would undermine the credibility of the court and likely lead to constitutional changes that would overrule its judgement.The best that SN can hope for is a judgement that upholds their claim but leaves it to parliment to decide what a "fair" settlement. You can be pretty sure that parliment is not going to agree to anything close to 1 trillion. Edited August 26, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 People claiming a trillion dollar debt to a tiny community are crazed. That is higher than the entirety of our government's revenues by several times. If it was a real number I'm sure it would be something more specific, like say 968 billion, or 1013 billion, etc. But 1 trillion just sounds like BS that someone pulled out of their ass. I can see a payment of a few billion perhaps, even that is pushing it given how tiny the community is and the other priorities and expenses our government has. But a trillion? Never, ever, gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 It isn't a "claim". It is a bonafide trust account and the government is the trustee. The SCoC would not have to validate it since it exists and has always existed. That is not in dispute. The only question would be whether it is $500 billion or $1 trillion as Six Nations claims...or somewhere in between. And the Supreme Court of Canada has already validated that any interest on any monies held in trust must be compounded in accordance with the Order in Council. It is a 'claim'. The courts certainly DO have to validate what that claim is worth. The question is not whether there will be 500 billion or 1 trillion. Those figures would and have been outright dismissed by anyone with a brain. The SCoC would not and could not award a claim so large that it would bankrupt the nation for the benefit of a tiny Ontario community. I really don't think you understand how the courts work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 You would think that the government would be afraid of all that power......oh wait...could THAT be the reason they don't want Six Nations to have its own money.....and perhaps why they are afraid of the cigarette trade (it produces about $10 million per month at Six Nations).....? How is selling a product that's heavily taxed elsewhere, and untaxed for Indians, at seemingly low prices an example of economic genius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 It is a 'claim'. The courts certainly DO have to validate what that claim is worth. The question is not whether there will be 500 billion or 1 trillion. Those figures would and have been outright dismissed by anyone with a brain. The SCoC would not and could not award a claim so large that it would bankrupt the nation for the benefit of a tiny Ontario community. I really don't think you understand how the courts work. It is you that don't understand the fiduciary responsibility the Crown has for First Nations. It would only go to court IF Six Nations wanted to deal with it there. And since you don't understand how the SCoC works you are still out to lunch. The SCoC has already ruled on a similar case recently and THEY ruled that the government must pay ALL the compounded interest on the First Nations' trust. IF the government attempted to appeal it to the SCoC it is likely to be dismissed in favour of Six Nations unless the case is substantially different then the previous case already ruled upon. The SCoC does not answer the same questions twice. The first answer was "pay up". There really is nothing more to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 It is you that don't understand the fiduciary responsibility the Crown has for First Nations. It would only go to court IF Six Nations wanted to deal with it there. And since you don't understand how the SCoC works you are still out to lunch.And you don't understand that the SCC ultimately controlled by the democratic majority and the court knows this. You can rant and rave as much as you want about the law as it it currently written but all it takes is 50%+1 of the people to demand that the law changes and it will.The SCoC does not answer the same questions twice. The first answer was "pay up". There really is nothing more to it.It is highly unlikely that the SCC would accept a previous ruling for a minscule amount of money as a precedent. And even if it did the rejection of the appeal would trigger a public backlash and the laws will be changed.At the end of the day the only argument that SN has is the moral argument that they were screwed over in the past and they deserve something. However, that something is not $1 trillion and if SN continues to demand such rediculous sums then they will lose whatever sympathy they might have amoung people who might be presuaded by the moral argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) The Supreme Court would never in a million years validate a trillion dollar claim for a tiny community in southern ontario. It wouldn't in any way be a 'fair' judgement and the people saying it's going to happen are completely out to lunch. The judgment isn't in question. What's in question is what are we going to do about it? Get angry and nasty (again) like Jerry J? Riverwind, can you give a link to that case please? The Supreme Court expects a balancing of the rights and interests of all. So what do we want our negotiators to do? Because what they are doing is ... stalling. That all our negotiators are ever paid to do, I think. And we pay them millions ... and millions in bureaucracy ... to avoid resolving anything for as long as possible. Canada evades providing an accounting of Six Nations trust fund. That's all we pay them for. Edited August 27, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 And you don't understand that the SCC ultimately controlled by the democratic majority and the court knows this. You can rant and rave as much as you want about the law as it it currently written but all it takes is 50%+1 of the people to demand that the law changes and it will.It is highly unlikely that the SCC would accept a previous ruling for a minscule amount of money as a precedent. And even if it did the rejection of the appeal would trigger a public backlash and the laws will be changed. At the end of the day the only argument that SN has is the moral argument that they were screwed over in the past and they deserve something. However, that something is not $1 trillion and if SN continues to demand such rediculous sums then they will lose whatever sympathy they might have amoung people who might be presuaded by the moral argument. You are such a dreamer....even delusional maybe.... The courts are not controlled by the will of the public. Civil law and international law are not subject to the will of the public either. They are based on precedent and historical civic codes. They MUST comply with the Constitution. So you can dream all you want, but living in a dreamworld doesn't make you smarter. It just makes you more detached from reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) The courts are not controlled by the will of the public. Civil law and international law are not subject to the will of the public either. They are based on precedent and historical civic codes. They MUST comply with the Constitution.And the constitution can and will be changed if that is what the majority want.Look at California. The courts ruled that gay marriage had to be legal according to the state's constitution. The people disagreed. Gay marriage is now illegal in California and will remain so for the foreseeable future. At the end of the day courts MUST answer to the majority and the majority will always get what it wants. International law only means something if other countries are willing to make an issue out of it. The US broke international law in Iraq yet has faced no consequences. The majority of countries in the world have aboriginal populations of some sort and they are NOT going to oppose the right of the Canadian government to place limits on compensation to aboriginal groups because it would not be in their self interest. You are quite delusional if you think anything else is true. Edited August 27, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 And the constitution can and will be changed if that is what the majority want.Look at California. The courts ruled that gay marriage had to be legal according to the state's constitution. The people disagreed. Gay marriage is now illegal in California and will remain so for the foreseeable future. At the end of the day courts MUST answer to the majority and the majority will always get what it wants. International law only means something if other countries are willing to make an issue out of it. The US broke international law in Iraq yet has faced no consequences. The majority of countries in the world have aboriginal populations of some sort and they are NOT going to oppose the right of the Canadian government to place limits on compensation to aboriginal groups because it would not be in their self interest. You are quite delusional if you think anything else is true. No the constitution cannot be changed by the will of the majority. The very fact that certain guarantees are included in the Charter is proof enough that doing the right thing often goes against the will of the majority. The government has already been forced to pay First Nations substantial interest on their trusts. Six Nations is no different and they will receive their money, one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 No the constitution cannot be changed by the will of the majority.You are clueless. All consititutions can be amended. In some cases there is a requirement for a supermajority or a regional veto, however, they can always be amended. In Canada's case the amending requirement 7 provinces representing 50% of the population. The very fact that certain guarantees are included in the Charter is proof enough that doing the right thing often goes against the will of the majority.The Charter restricts regular laws - it does not prevent the majority from modifying the charter or the constitution. If the majority in Canada wanted to outlaw gay marriage it could amend the consitution just like the voters in California did. For someone who uses the term 'charter.rights' in your moniker you appear to understand little about what the charter is. The government has already been forced to pay First Nations substantial interest on their trusts. Six Nations is no different and they will receive their money, one way or the other.They will receive sums that the government and courts feels are apropropriate. They will not receive anything close to $1 trillion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) In Canada's case the amending requirement 7 provinces representing 50% of the population. That's not completely true. Some amendments require the consent of all involved (all ten provinces, the HoC, the Commons, and the Crown). Edited August 27, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 International law only means something if other countries are willing to make an issue out of it. The US broke international law in Iraq yet has faced no consequences. Of course the US has faced consequences, but not because of "breaking" international law. Indeed, "international law" was used to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. ....as for the $1,000,000,000,000 CAD claim, that is just an eyecatching placeholder for actual damages and compensation to be decided at a later date...and it worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 That's not completely true. Some amendments require the consent of all involved (all ten provinces, the HoC, the Commons, and the Crown).Yes, amending the amending formula requires a higher criteria. But a vote of 50%+1 in all 10 provinces would cover all situtations. The Queen is legally compelled to accept all amendements that affect her role - including an amendment that eliminated the Queen as the head of state.charter.right's assertion that the constitution cannot be changed by the majority is completely rediculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 charter.right's assertion that the constitution cannot be changed by the majority is completely rediculous. Oh, I agree, but he's right in terms of a simple majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Of course the US has faced consequences, but not because of "breaking" international law. Indeed, "international law" was used to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.There are many different interpretations of international law. There are many who insist that the US did indeed break the law, however, most people ignore such a debate because international law is a largely irrelevent backdrop in the world of international politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Oh, and there are a few other things besides the amendment formula that need unanimous consent for changes, the Crown and the SCC among them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Oh, I agree, but he's right in terms of a simple majority.It may be semantics buy I see the term simple majority as something designed to contrast with supermajority. Many countries require supermajorities - Canada does not. The provincial approval only means the simple majority must be geographically distributed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Oh, and there are a few other things besides the amendment formula that need unanimous consent for changes, the Crown and the SCC among them.Crown approval is a formality since the Crown is compelled to accept any amendment that removed the Crown as head of state (i.e. if the Crown was the only hold out the Crown would be dumped).The 10 province criteria affects everything related to provincial representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 No, what I was saying is that changes to the Crown and the Supreme Court require consent by all bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 No, what I was saying is that changes to the Crown and the Supreme Court require consent by all bodies. The will of the majority of citizens has nothing to do with this process as I stated earlier. The consent of all political bodies is required to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And they have proven over and over again that not only is it extremely rare for them all to agree, but that they would more often than not go against the will of the majority and protect minorities rights against the tyranny of the majority. As far as the SCoC goes, it does not ever consider what the majority wants. It decides on the basis of law, upholding the Charter above all law to a point of finding many Canadian laws unconstitutional and therefore invalid. Lower courts are also charged with being arms length from any special interest - especially the general public - who are neither equipped to question their decisions, or capable of understanding the laws being applied. You see...Riverwind really doesn't understand the Constitution and has on many occasions attempted to substitute his wishful thinking for fact. It is best just to let him wallow in his delusions..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 As far as the SCoC goes, it does not ever consider what the majority wants. That's not what I was speaking to, but the SCC, does not only decide on the basis of law. There are many considerations to their rulings, not the least of which is the ability to govern the country as also mentioned in the Charter (you know, the section that you deny the power of). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) And they have proven over and over again that not only is it extremely rare for them all to agree.So now you change your tune. Instead of saying impossible - you claim it is simply unlikely. Well, a trillion dollar award given to a single aboriginal group would provide more than enough incentive to get 50%+1 support in 7 provinces - especially those provinces with significant aboriginal minority populations. You see...Riverwind really doesn't understand the Constitution and has on many occasions attempted to substitute his wishful thinking for fact. It is best just to let him wallow in his delusions.....A silly statement for someone who just admited he was wrong. The constutition can be changed by majority and the minority cannot stop it. Edited August 27, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 The judgment isn't in question.What's in question is what are we going to do about it? Disobey it if obedience is literally impossible. The U.S. Supreme Court learned by experience not to invite disobedience by making rulings that could not or would not be obeyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.