Why are Liberals lying about Ignatieff's past again?

[RNG]

Yes it does. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is weakness.

What, where is Canada's Constitution? Show me where i can look at it. I know where I can see the US constitution, and a whole bunch of other countries, but where is ours?

[cybercoma]

But I seriously do. Any activist Supreme Court judge can just make up laws as he/she wishes that way. And to hell with the desires of the public.

Sure. Any activist that can manage to persuade the other 8 justices to his/her view. Pretty safe to say any particular wingnut isn't going to get very far.

[TimG]

Sure. Any activist that can manage to persuade the other 8 justices to his/her view. Pretty safe to say any particular wingnut isn't going to get very far.

All it takes are 5 out 9 justices to twist the interpretation of laws in a way that suits their preferences.

[Smallc]

What, where is Canada's Constitution? Show me where i can look at it. I know where I can see the US constitution, and a whole bunch of other countries, but where is ours?

I already showed you the link. Here's another one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

That said, there is more to it than what you see, and that's very often a good thing, and not a weakness. If you have such a love and fascination with the US, move there.

[Smallc]

All it takes are 5 out 9 justices to twist the interpretation of laws in a way that suits their preferences.

Oh my goodness, only 5? How many would you prefer?

[g_bambino]

And again, Canada does not have a constitution.

[g_bambino]

Yet once the SCC rules the majority interpretation becomes a precident so it is reasonable to claim that judges do make laws via their power to pick and choose between alternate interpretations of the laws passed by parliment.

The law has already been made; otherwise, there'd be nothing for them to interpret. If you want the judges to have less leeway in interpreting what the law means, then perhaps you should work harder to ensure that our legislators write better laws.

[Tilter]

So in saying:

“I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November.”

he is either a liar or a political nincompoop who doesn't even know how the American political system is run.

And---When he said while talking to students in the States---

this country is as much your as it is mine

all the students were from countries other than the USA?

Is he or is he not a dual citizen. If so he can vote in the US, Canada & according to him, the UK.He can be at home damn near anywhere. I'd be happy to see him elsewhere than here.

[Bryan]

Is he or is he not a dual citizen.

Despite his frequent claims otherwise, no, he is not any kind of US citizen -- dual or otherwise.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Bryan

[cybercoma]

All it takes are 5 out 9 justices to twist the interpretation of laws in a way that suits their preferences.

You need 5 out of the 9 to sign off and agree to the exact same reasoning. You could have 5 judges in favour with 3 different reasonings, as was the case with R v Morgentaler (1988), and the ruling would not be binding.

So yeah. You need 4 other people to agree with your exact, extremist reasoning. Not likely.

[ToadBrother]

We don't have a written constitution. We have the BNA Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But there is a whole hell of a lot that isn't covered, and that's where the SC has free reign.

And of course, you've got examples forthcoming, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

And of course, you've got examples forthcoming, right?

Such examples are not hard to find (e.g. R. vs. Feeney 1997)....I believe Canadians call it "Charter Politics"...referring to the impact of the 1982 Act and Charter on Canadian federalism with respect to Supreme Court rulings. Ditto health care or same gender marriage. Certainly up for argument, but examples are readily available.

[ToadBrother]

Such examples are not hard to find (e.g. R. vs. Feeney 1997)....I believe Canadians call it "Charter Politics"...referring to the impact of the 1982 Act and Charter on Canadian federalism with respect to Supreme Court rulings. Ditto health care or same gender marriage. Certainly up for argument, but examples are readily available.

Yes, the Charter does set up a situation similar to other entrenched Bills of Rights in other countries. But these are still, technically, matters of interpretation. The judicial system also has an advisory role, such as we're seeing with the polygamy question, but again, it's still an issue of interpretation of the Charter. It is, after all, the purpose of any entrenched bill of rights to set limits on the power of the other branches of government as to what they can intrude upon or not, and it requires some sort of a constitutional court that can act as the ultimate arbiter.

So far as I know, among democracies, the UK and New Zealand are the sole remaining nations that retain the pure Westminster system, in that Parliament supremacy is at least still technically true in all respects, although there is definitely movement in the UK towards a more formalized set of judicial conventions, which raises the debate as to whether the UK still has Parliamentary supremacy.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Saipan]

And of course, you've got examples forthcoming, right?

No property rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It is, after all, the purpose of any entrenched bill of rights to set limits on the power of the other branches of government as to what they can intrude upon or not, and it requires some sort of a constitutional court that can act as the ultimate arbiter.

But even in this the court often falls short. As you may know, the court reversed itself with Feeney, having ruled a decade earlier for hundreds of years of common law precedent in R. v. Landry. (Thank you Google!)

So far as I know, among democracies, the UK and New Zealand are the sole remaining nations that retain the pure Westminster system, in that Parliament supremacy is at least still technically true in all respects, although there is definitely movement in the UK towards a more formalized set of judicial conventions, which raises the debate as to whether the UK still has Parliamentary supremacy.

And that's what I think other members are getting at....it really isn't nailed down until such steps are taken. There is too much wiggle room if everything from the Magna Carta to the kitchen sink are included.

Edited April 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

No property rights.

That's what the Common Law is for. This claim that there are no property rights are bullcrap.

[ToadBrother]

But even in this the court often falls short. As you may know, the court reversed itself with Feeney, having ruled a decade earlier for hundreds of years of common law precedent in R. v. Landry. (Thank you Google!)

No different than any other Supreme Court.

And that's what I think other members are getting at....it really isn't nailed down until such steps are taken. There is too much wiggle room if everything from the Magna Carta to the kitchen sink are included.

Countries like the US and France are not that different, their constitutions still leave, in some cases, a considerable amount of wiggle room that only slowly gets filled up by rulings.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

So in saying:

he is either a liar or a political nincompoop who doesn't even know how the American political system is run.

And---When he said while talking to students in the States--- all the students were from countries other than the USA?

Is he or is he not a dual citizen. If so he can vote in the US, Canada & according to him, the UK.He can be at home damn near anywhere. I'd be happy to see him elsewhere than here.

Commonwealth citizens can vote in United Kingdom elections if they are resident in the UK.

Like if I moved to somewhere in the UK I could vote in our elections there.

Canadians born before 1982 are commonwealth citizens. (We were british subjects before 1982... BUT... both British law and Canadian law have derided Homage law and the ancestorial tie to the Isles. In my communications with the CIC they don't even recognize commonwealth citizenship as a national citizenship.. nor do they allow a Canadian to relinquish their citizenship for British Subject status. UK law is becoming more complex over the last 10 years. I'm really not sure the High Commisions take.... but more or less the ability to transfer citizenship via administrative process is mostly shut down now.. but Canadians who are commonwealth citizens have voting rights when resident in the UK still - however this is not reciprocated in Canada. More or less Canada exists as an act in British Palriament - the Canada Act - it can technically be ammended or changed by British Parliament.. they still have de jure legal control of Canada. The defacto status rests on status quo ante dium and customary law of allodial right and -- is more or less the will of the sovreign in their multi-crownness. The English Queen cannot - more or less rule Canada and the Canadian Queen needs to rule Canada -- - so it might be one hell of a split brain occurence or pretty funny slapstick situation. However the Queen seems to more or less do it on a soveregin ground basis - or official capacity --- the Privy Councils would likely need to be in agreement -- so effectively Canada and Britian hold vetos... but British law is still in effect in Canada - including british law that is not in effect in Britian -including laws on High Treason that are punished by decapitation.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-general-election

Edited April 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

We were british subjects before 1982...

Before 1982, yes. But, not after 1947.

More or less Canada exists as an act in British Palriament - the Canada Act - it can technically be ammended or changed by British Parliament.. they still have de jure legal control of Canada.

Just plain wrong.

[+]

Edited April 12, 2011 by g_bambino