Wilber Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 I thought the irony was that the only people the Charter has protected since its inception are criminals. The criminal "justice" system is strictly between the crown and the accused. Victims do not exist as far as it is concerned. In this system, anyone can be a victim except the person who was assaulted or robbed. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
On Guard for Thee Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 I'm curious. Could you please show me where in the constitution it says "criminals who spend time in custody will be granted 2 or 3 days off their sentence for every day spent in custody? It doesn't say that in the constitution. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 False! Nothing in the constitution says so. WWWTT So you are saying the government of the day can hollus bollus change the constitution at their will? False. Quote
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 So you are saying the government of the day can hollus bollus change the constitution at their will? False. Sorry never said that the government can change the constitution as easy as passing a bill until it achieves royal accent. What I am saying is that there is nothing in the constitution that says the government (federal, provincial or regional/municipal) can only create laws that are in line with the constitution. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Wilber Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The problem is in the law. They left leeway for 1.5 times credit, but didn't really explain it at all. The law needs to be revised. The SC seems to have made that impossible. For all intents and purposes 1.5 credit for time served is part of the Charter even though the Charter doesn't say so and Parliament doesn't want it to be. Whoever still thinks Parliament makes the law is kidding themselves. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
On Guard for Thee Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Sorry never said that the government can change the constitution as easy as passing a bill until it achieves royal accent. What I am saying is that there is nothing in the constitution that says the government (federal, provincial or regional/municipal) can only create laws that are in line with the constitution. WWWTT Well I guess they can attempt to make any kind of law they want, but the SCC will strike them down, further wasting the courts time, the governments time, and the taxpayers money. BTW this one wasn't struck down over the constitution, it was struck down over the charter of rights and freedoms. Quote
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Well I guess they can attempt to make any kind of law they want, but the SCC will strike them down, further wasting the courts time, the governments time, and the taxpayers money. BTW this one wasn't struck down over the constitution, it was struck down over the charter of rights and freedoms. Yes sorry I meant both the Charter and the constitution. And yes it's a big waste of money! Did you really believe the conservative government cares about wastefully spending money? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Smallc Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The SC seems to have made that impossible. For all intents and purposes 1.5 credit for time served is part of the Charter even though the Charter doesn't say so and Parliament doesn't want it to be. Whoever still thinks Parliament makes the law is kidding themselves. What the SC said is that the government allowed for 1.5 credit, but didn't spell out what the special circumstances were. Write it out of the law, and let the law be challenged again. Then we can see what happens. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Yes sorry I meant both the Charter and the constitution. And yes it's a big waste of money! Did you really believe the conservative government cares about wastefully spending money? WWWTT Well I guess all stripes of governments have had their go at spending money like a drunken sailor, however conservative governments always seem to try to convince us of their abilities of fiscal restraint, and the current ones have certainly belied that concept. Quote
Wilber Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 What the SC said is that the government allowed for 1.5 credit, but didn't spell out what the special circumstances were. Write it out of the law, and let the law be challenged again. Then we can see what happens. Let's hope so but it doesn't give me a lot of optimism. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Big Guy Posted April 12, 2014 Author Report Posted April 12, 2014 Most of the legislation that has been overturned by the Supreme Court is legislation that appeals to the far right. If there is a hidden agenda then it may be a conscious effort to create and forward bills that the Harper government knows will be overturned by the SC. They present some draconian law that they know will not pass and it is overturned. They have satisfied their base. After all they did try did they not? They also quiet the opposition because the law will not be implemented. A win win for the government. Dumb like foxes! Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Not always the case BG. An example I can think of was the special laws that McGuinty rammed through Queens Park just before the now infamous G8/G20 convention! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
On Guard for Thee Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Most of the legislation that has been overturned by the Supreme Court is legislation that appeals to the far right. If there is a hidden agenda then it may be a conscious effort to create and forward bills that the Harper government knows will be overturned by the SC. They present some draconian law that they know will not pass and it is overturned. They have satisfied their base. After all they did try did they not? They also quiet the opposition because the law will not be implemented. A win win for the government. Dumb like foxes! You hit the nail on the head IMO. I think the tough on crime thing is a complete example of that. They know it wont fly but they can get a few votes just for trying. I'm even suspicious enough of Harper to ponder if they couple of attempts by private members to get the abortion issue back on the table wasn't in the same vein. Quote
TimG Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) If there is a hidden agenda then it may be a conscious effort to create and forward bills that the Harper government knows will be overturned by the SC.I don't think anyone expected the SCC to decide to pre-empt the authority granted under the constitution to parliament to pass laws governing the administration of justice. It is rather ridiculous for the court to decide on how sentences should be be calculated. Edited April 12, 2014 by TimG Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 I don't think anyone expected the SCC to decide to pre-empt the authority granted under the constitution to parliament to pass laws governing the administration of justice. It is rather ridiculous for the court to decide on how sentences should be be calculated. They didn't pre-empt anything, they identified a hole in the legislation and said "Don't leave loopholes you can drive a truck through otherwise expect people to take advantage of them.....and expect judges to let them." Quote
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 That was exaggeration correct? Its amazing armchair QBs always seem to know better than the people who trained in the profession. Better to say those without a personal vested financial interest in making the system as complex and time-consuming as possible would know better than those who do. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The judges on the SCC know the law and the constitution far better than the government does. What evidence do you have to support this statement? Bear in mind judges are not chosen for the Supreme Court because of their brilliance or wisdom, nor indeed for their knowledge of law. All that is tertiary to the central point of what province they come from, what their ethnicity and gender is, and what their political leanings are. As to how lawyers become judges in the first place. They suck up to people. Again, their legal knowledge and wisdom are really not at issue. The various Canadian legal associations will tell you anyone who is a member of the bar, ie, any lawyer, who has practiced law for a brief period of time, is qualified to be a judge. SO in all likelihood, all the smartest, most capable people in this country with regard to the law, are not judges at all. Legally, a lot of the "tough" on crime" legislation is simply wannabe tough-guy BS and just isn't allowed in our constitution. Our constitution says whatever the SC claim it says. They have absolute power to interpret in any way they so desire. If they want to, they can claim only blondes are allowed to run for office, and no one can challenge their interpretation. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 It doesn't say that in the constitution. So your statement about this law violating the constitution was what then? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 So you are saying the government of the day can hollus bollus change the constitution at their will? False. No, only the Supreme Court has the power to change the constitution. They don't even have to consult anyone or get anyone's agreement. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Well I guess they can attempt to make any kind of law they want, but the SCC will strike them down, further wasting the courts time, the governments time, and the taxpayers money. BTW this one wasn't struck down over the constitution, it was struck down over the charter of rights and freedoms. Which is part of the constitution. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Most of the legislation that has been overturned by the Supreme Court is legislation that appeals to the far right. Actually, most of it appeals to almost all Canadians, regardless of their political leanings. Most of my friends are liberal and they support sending criminals away for longer periods of time. There really isn't nearly as much sympathy for criminals among ordinary people as there is among the legal elites. But perhaps that's because ordinary people are forced to deal with them while the elites live elsewhere. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Better to say those without a personal vested financial interest in making the system as complex and time-consuming as possible would know better than those who do. This comment, in my opinion has a tremendous amount of credit! I don't think that laws, the charter and constitution are really all that difficult, but when you talk to an alleged "constitutional lawyer" they will go out of their way to make everything sound difficult! I feel that this is intentionally done so that they can justify their $500/hr+ price tag! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Our constitution says whatever the SC claim it says. They have absolute power to interpret in any way they so desire. If they want to, they can claim only blondes are allowed to run for office, and no one can challenge their interpretation. You have a link to back this up, what examples are you thinking of? I guess you never heard of the appeal process? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 No, only the Supreme Court has the power to change the constitution. They don't even have to consult anyone or get anyone's agreement. Once again, you're going to have to start producing examples of where/when this happened. I would be very interested if you can actually produce an example, and on the other hand, I'll be disappointed if this is just your opinion! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
TimG Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 I guess you never heard of the appeal process?There is no appealing a SCC ruling. If they say something it is law and can never be changed or overridden by a democratically elected government. They have made a series of rulings where they choose to impose their peculiar politics on the rest of the country. The only reason you don't have a huge problem with this is the court is currently favoring your politics. But if that changed you would be complaining about unelected ideologues subverting democracy. Quote
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.