Notwithstanding Claus and Harper

[JohnMathew2]

It"s Pretty Scarry and the makings of Another Dictator-Any Prime Minister that will Use The Notwithstanding Clause to get His Own Way or His Party"s Way is Frankly Quite Scarry to me--And Look At Cheryl Gallants Recent Statements About Abortion--The Conservative Party is Full Of These Type OF Back Benchers-that Are Radical And Want To Force their Ideas On Women And The rest Of the Country--We Have Allready Got Rights we Don't want anymore taken Away!!! or to Go Backwards!!Harper has said many things and is recorded as saying so and he must own up to his own Statements

[DAC]

It"s Pretty Scarry and the makings of Another Dictator-Any Prime Minister that will Use The Notwithstanding Clause to get His Own Way or His Party"s Way is Frankly Quite Scarry to me

Harper is prepared, if necessary, to use the notwithstanding clause, to block the Supreme Court from taking over parliament’s job and legislating. That’s good, not scary. That’s protection for the people against 9 individuals who are appointed for life, and not subject to any other check on their decisions.

The Supreme Court is supposed to apply the law, not make new law. It has no authority to invent new rights that do not appear in the law. When it goes beyond its authority to define a new right or legislate, it takes away our democracy. It is no longer government of the people and by the people, but government of the 9 and by the 9. A Supreme Court that nobody is prepared to challenge or limit is what is really scary. And a PM who will accept the Supreme Court taking over parliament’s rôle in making laws is not far behind in the scary scale.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper is prepared, if necessary, to use the notwithstanding clause, to block the Supreme Court from taking over parliament’s job and legislating. That’s good, not scary. That’s protection for the people against 9 individuals who are appointed for life, and not subject to any other check on their decisions.

Are you against constitutions in general, or just the content of ours ? Something tells me it's the latter.

If our constitution didn't guarantee gay rights (as the justices have interpreted it, anyway), maybe you'd like it more.

The Supreme Court is supposed to apply the law, not make new law. It has no authority to invent new rights that do not appear in the law. When it goes beyond its authority to define a new right or legislate, it takes away our democracy. It is no longer government of the people and by the people, but government of the 9 and by the 9. A Supreme Court that nobody is prepared to challenge or limit is what is really scary. And a PM who will accept the Supreme Court taking over parliament’s rôle in making laws is not far behind in the scary scale.

Not that scary, really. The same thing happens in the US, except the judges are conservative.

[Goldie]

Then why did the provinces wish to have a notwithstanding clause? Even Trudeau thought it was flawed, thanks to Jean Cretien. We shouldn't use it because ........why?

[Kliege]

Yeah Why do we have the notwithstanding clause? If we have then we can use it.

[Alliance Fanatic]

So let me get this straight if a judge said that kiddy porn should be allowed under freedom of expression, and the supreme court support this, you think that Child pornography should be allowed right. As for Gallants comments about abortion, read the remarks made by the Liberal MP on abortion before saying BS.

[August1991]

Mr. Kirby also says what other politicians secretly know but will never, ever say: Real reform through politics is probably impossible. The system will only change when the courts make it.

Margaret Wente in G&M

Read this article to understand why we have an activist Supreme Court now. The Liberal Party has in effect turned the Supreme Court into a legislative body for legislation it doesn't want to deal with.

It has come to be that Canadians fold before the words "The Supreme Court has ruled..." and this eliminates all opposition.

This is not to take away from the Supreme Court's constitutional role. It's primary role should be to declare whether two laws are inconsistent, or whether one of the two laws should take precedence.

When Trudeau referred the question of constitutional amendment to the Supreme Court, he in effect created a new way to play politics.

We had a "charter of rights" prior to Trudeau. Our charter rights were all the laws and decisions taken over centuries. The British are very respectful of individual rights (an individual is the ultimate minority) and yet the British have no single document stating these rights.

Nature abhors a vacuum; the Supreme Court is filling a void.

[DAC]

Are you against constitutions in general, or just the content of ours ? Something tells me it's the latter.

I'm inclined to be a little dubious about constitutions because of the danger of judges legislating. But the issue is not so much constitutions as judges doing the job of the elected legislature. I agree with August1991 that the task of the Supreme Court is to rule on laws. Various pressures have encouraged them to be activist, but this is really a breach of trust.

Not that scary, really. The same thing happens in the US, except the judges are conservative.

I wouldn't say the judges in the US are conservative, though they might move that way if Bush is re-elected, and the Republicans continue to hold the Senate. But in my opinion activist conservative judges are just as scary as activist liberal judges. I might like their decisions better, but they are just as big a threat to our freedom.

[DAC]

Why do we have the notwithstanding clause?

We have the notwithstanding clause because people raised in the common law system in which parliament was clearly supreme, parliament could always trump the judges by writing a law, were concerned that the constitution would make the judges supreme. They believed that the elected body should still have the final power, and so provided a way in which the elected body could overrule the Supreme Court.

The notwithstanding clause is a protection against a court that gets out of hand. In fact it is the only protection we have against the Supreme Court. In Canada there is no provision for impeachment.

[August1991]

We have the notwithstanding clause because people raised in the common law system in which parliament was clearly supreme, parliament could always trump the judges by writing a law, were concerned that the constitution would make the judges supreme.

To get support (in Quebec for example), Trudeau had to offer an out. The use of the notwithstanding clause requires renewal by the legislature every five years. Not all parts of the Charter can be avoided by this clause.

In the end, Trudeau didn't even get the support of the Quebec provincial Liberals (under Claude Ryan). But he did get the support of his whole federal Liberal caucus. Trudeau frequently mentioned this as meaning Quebec support.

Bear in mind the US Bill of Rights amount to amendments. They are not in the body of the US Constitution. The State (ie a politician) limits with difficulty its field of intervention.

Think of PM PM. He wants TO DO. That means he wants to be able to make us do something.

[Goldie]

Perhaps all the concern is just media fluff.

[August1991]

Perhaps all the concern is just media fluff.

Goldie, you're absolutely right. But these are good questions that a civilized society should consider and debate.

True, the only question is who will be PM after 28 June - but I admire the debate itself. You are welcome to extend the political- power angle. But I enjoy the debate, and understand its ultimate meaning.

We Canadians will get the least bad governors. We are fortunate because we can throw the bastards out - without great cost to our personal lives.

[DAC]

We Canadians will get the least bad governors. We are fortunate because we can throw the bastards out - without great cost to our personal lives.

Well, we can try to throw them out, anyway.

[Argus]

It"s Pretty Scarry and the makings of Another Dictator-

As bad as Chretien!? Oh I don't think so.

Any Prime Minister that will Use The Notwithstanding Clause to get His Own Way or His Party"s Way is Frankly Quite Scarry to me--

Why is that? You think judges, who are not elected, and who are often biased and prejudiced (they are not appointed because of wisdom and knowledge, after all, but because of party favours) should decide how we live rather than the people we elect?

BTW, Paul Martin was the first to say he would use the notwithstanding clause if the courts got too far over the line on the gay rights issue and started to intrude on religious freedom.

And Look At Cheryl Gallants Recent Statements About Abortion--

Standing on a stage in front of a number of Liberal MPs who applauded.

[Argus]

The Supreme Court is supposed to apply the law, not make new law. It has no authority to invent new rights that do not appear in the law. When it goes beyond its authority to define a new right or legislate, it takes away our democracy. It is no longer government of the people and by the people, but government of the 9 and by the 9. A Supreme Court that nobody is prepared to challenge or limit is what is really scary. And a PM who will accept the Supreme Court taking over parliament’s rôle in making laws is not far behind in the scary scale.

Not that scary, really. The same thing happens in the US, except the judges are conservative.

Yes, but their system was designed for it, ours wasn't. Their judges are not appointed because they get turfed out of office by voters (many of our federal judges get their judgeships as political patronage rewards to the party). Their judges are closely scrutinized by state and federal legislatures before appointment, or else elected. There is no mechanism in our system to vet judges even though they suddenly have much more power than they used to.