Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Translation perhaps? There was one extra to in there. It didn't take much considering to figure it out. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 There was one extra to in there. It didn't take much considering to figure it out. Who is your "she"? for starters. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Who is your "she"? for starters. Jacee is a she. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Jacee is a she. Oh Ok I sort of get it now. Quote
jacee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Maybe. Sounded like you were saying judges write legislation. And I guess I assumed you were probably talkig about SCC judges who have to cotinually correct Mr. Harper's attempts at writing legislation. And the Senate just rubber stamps legislation, even knowing that it likely violates our constitutional rights..So I was suggesting that 'sober second thought' be done by the courts instead. It is anyway, in long and expensive court challenges, so if we're talking of abolishing the Senate, why not get an opinion from the courts before legislation is finalized instead? It can be done under current rules. Harper has done it himself. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/canadian-politics/harper-government-asks-supreme-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-senate-reform Edited July 27, 2015 by jacee Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 And the Senate just rubber stamps legislation, even knowing that it likely violates our constitutional rights.. So I was suggesting that 'sober second thought' be done by the courts instead. It is anyway, in long and expensive court challenges, so if we're talking of abolishing the Senate, why not get an opinion from the courts before legislation is finalized instead? It can be done under current rules. Harper has done it himself. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/canadian-politics/harper-government-asks-supreme-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-senate-reform OK, now I really do get it. I agree, there was a suggestion that with all the controversy over C 51 it should be sent to the SC right off the bat for their scrutiny. Which of course Harper wouldn't hear of, rammed it through, and already we have 2 groups filing suit against it. So off we go on another lengthy, expensive court battle that will likely end up at the SC anyway. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 That's the way it's supposed to work. The courts should not be involved in drafting legislation and preventing. That's what the experts at the Justice department are for. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 That's the way it's supposed to work. The courts should not be involved in drafting legislation and preventing. That's what the experts at the Justice department are for. Once again, no one is suggesting the SC draft the legislation, only have them point out any constitutional issues that could have it sent back for changes rather than having to go through yet another lengthy and costly court battle. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Once again, no one is suggesting the SC draft the legislation, only have them point out any constitutional issues that could have it sent back for changes rather than having to go through yet another lengthy and costly court battle. Why bother having a Parliament at all? Also, do you think them spending valuable time on all legislation will be free? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Why bother having a Parliament at all? Also, do you think them spending valuable time on all legislation will be free? You have a parliament to decide what issues need legislation and to draft it. As far as cost goes, it's pay me now or pay me later. However if things were corrected at the outset it would inevitably be a lot cheaper since bad law wouldn't have to wend it's way through a series of lower courts to get to the SC. Quote
Argus Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Probably because they don't have to seek re election and can therefore focus their legal expertise on what is written and expressed in law. There's that distrust and dislike of democracy again. Maybe we should stop having elections. That way our politicians won't have to worry and can show the same sort of integrity. 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 July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 They reference law instead of political agenda. 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 July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 They are not in the business of writing legislation. Apparently you need a primer on how our government works. You could use on in reality. 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 July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 You have a parliament to decide what issues need legislation and to draft it. Or just let the courts continue to decide what issues need changes and then simply change the law to suit themselves, as they've been doing to date. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Or just let the courts continue to decide what issues need changes and then simply change the law to suit themselves, as they've been doing to date. There you go again. They don't change law, only decide it it's constitutional or not. Still need that primer I see. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 There's that distrust and dislike of democracy again. Maybe we should stop having elections. That way our politicians won't have to worry and can show the same sort of integrity. You wanna stop having elections...and who doesn't trust democracy? Quote
jacee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) That's the way it's supposed to work. The courts should not be involved in drafting legislation and preventing. That's what the experts at the Justice department are for.True. And most governments use them to avoid unconstitutional legislation and expensive court challenges.Harper didn't, and nothing required him to. That's a flaw in the system. Politicians are not legal experts, and should be **required** to submit proposed legislation to bodies that are legal experts. . Edited July 27, 2015 by jacee Quote
Topaz Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 If Canadians want to give more power to the PMO, then get rid of the senate but I think that's a bad idea because Canadians wouldn't have anyone representing "them" because MP's always follow the leader. Since its people that made it look bad then bring in new laws for the senate and the MP's and get overseers for both. Quote
Argus Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) If Canadians want to give more power to the PMO, then get rid of the senate but I think that's a bad idea because Canadians wouldn't have anyone representing "them" because MP's always follow the leader. Since its people that made it look bad then bring in new laws for the senate and the MP's and get overseers for both. Either the government appoints the senators, in which case it's likely to choose those who favour them, or they're elected, in which case there's going to be the same sort of party discipline we have in the House. The only third way would be some sort of neutral body appointing them without the government's consent, and that would require a constitutional change. Edited July 27, 2015 by Argus 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
Evening Star Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 The only third way would be some sort of neutral body appointing them without the government's consent, and that would require a constitutional change. Would it? I didn't think that there is anything in the Constitution that stipulates that the sitting government needs to recommend Senators to the GG. My understanding was that as far as the written Constitution goes, the GG is in charge of appointing Senators and that it is simply a modern convention that the PM recommends them. If there were some sort of agreement that they could be recommended to the GG in a different way, is there anything that would stop this? Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Would it? I didn't think that there is anything in the Constitution that stipulates that the sitting government needs to recommend Senators to the GG. My understanding was that as far as the written Constitution goes, the GG is in charge of appointing Senators and that it is simply a modern convention that the PM recommends them. If there were some sort of agreement that they could be recommended to the GG in a different way, is there anything that would stop this? Convention become written in mythical stone. This is one of those times. In practice, the GG is advised only by his chief minister. That hasn't changed for a very long time. The court made that pretty clear. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Which court? When? The Supreme Court reference last year. Quote
Evening Star Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Do you have a link? I'm not doubting you; I'm just interested. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Do you have a link? I'm not doubting you; I'm just interested. No problem: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13614/index.do This stuff is hard on my phone. 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.