|
Political Debate jan 9 (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Matt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What was there to be sneaky about?
I never understood this arguement and have yet to hear one valid arguement regarding this.
Maybe you can clue us all in? :conf: |
GST cut *smirk*
Notwithstanding clause *smirk*
etc.
He also shuffled his feet back and forth continuously during his opening remarks... maybe not suspicious, but damn annoying. I consider Harper to be a weak public speaker.
It makes him look like a scheming little prick. Just as valid as calling Layton a used-car salesman. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Interesting, however, the appropriate way to respond to judges ruling legislation unconstitutional would be to either ammend the legislation or ammend the constitution, disregarding the constitution itself is not acceptable in a society ruled by law. |
Perhaps some people forget the FLQ crisis of the 70s. This is the kind of emergency im referring to. It would have to be a time of genuine crisis. Not something cosmetic. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Matt
I consider Harper to be a weak public speaker. |
I think what you're seeing is more a manifestation of the preasure he is under. He needs to satisfy his core supporters in the west while attracting new support in Ontario and the east. This is a hard task as it must be done in a way as to not frighten the red tories but must also tell the blue tories that he is still their man. I feel badly for him, he's in a tough spot. I think that should he attain government you'll notice a marked change in his behaviour. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Perhaps some people forget the FLQ crisis of the 70s. This is the kind of emergency im referring to. It would have to be a time of genuine crisis. Not something cosmetic. |
The war measures act allows this in a short term emergency without use of s.33. |
|
|
| Matt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think what you're seeing is more a manifestation of the preasure he is under. He needs to satisfy his core supporters in the west while attracting new support in Ontario and the east. This is a hard task as it must be done in a way as to not frighten the red tories but must also tell the blue tories that he is still their man. I feel badly for him, he's in a tough spot. I think that should he attain government you'll notice a marked change in his behaviour. |
I feel bad for him too... if he loses another election he's going to lose his job :rolleyes: |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Interesting, however, the appropriate way to respond to judges ruling legislation unconstitutional would be to either ammend the legislation or ammend the constitution, disregarding the constitution itself is not acceptable in a society ruled by law. |
The constitution is not what nine unelected, Lieberal-friendly judges say it is.
The constitution is what the Parliament of Canada (including the people's representatives in the House) deems it to be.
Whenever judges, for example, create rights out of thin air they've in essence unilaterally amended the constitution without Parliament's consent. That's not the rule of law, that's politics.
| quote: | | The rule of law implies that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with written laws, which were adopted through an established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Law |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
The constitution is not what nine unelected, Lieberal-friendly judges say it is.
The constitution is what the Parliament of Canada (including the people's representatives in the House) deems it to be.
Whenever judges, for example, create rights out of thin air they've in essence unilaterally amended the constitution without Parliament's consent. That's not the rule of law, that's politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Law |
Incorrect. The constitution is three documents, BNA 1867, The Westminister Act 1932, and the Constitution Act 1982. These documents give the Supreme Court of Canada final judgement over the interpretation of said documents. THIS IS FACT AND IS WHAT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS BASED ON.
Additionally, Parliament cannot change the constitution, this must be done by the provinces, at least 7/10 representing a 2/3 majority of the population. Therefore, the constitution really is what the people as represented by the provincial legislatures deem it to be, not what Parliament dictates.
If you want Parliament to have the lone say in constitutional matters then you have really given up all rights to protection against poor government. This, however, could be done if 7/10 provinces representing 2/3 of the population agreed to it. You'll never see that happen but it is theoretically possible. |
|
|
| ShAwZy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
no kiddin. someone needs to slap some sense into this man. you can't go around pouring money into all these social programs and not take care of the corporate sector. he makes it sound like a corporate tax cut is a mortal sin. dumass, it's vital for a strong economy. |
Sorry, you quoted Malek's comments about Layton being desperate. In your comments; what does it have to do with him being deperate?
AND PEOPLE.
2 Things you never argue about with anyone is Religion and Politics. Keep it at a discussion level and it can be informative. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The war measures act allows this in a short term emergency without use of s.33. |
S 33 didnt exist back then nor did our current constitution |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
S 33 didnt exist back then nor did our current constitution |
Indeed you are correct, however, I don't see how that factors into my point. The WMA is the appropriate vehicle for a temporary suspension of rights in an emergency, S.33 is for a longer term use. Regardless, we're getting way off point here. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
These documents give the Supreme Court of Canada final judgement over the interpretation of said documents. |
Those documents do not give the Supreme Court that power. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Regardless, we're getting way off point here. |
^^^^^^
and that was the whole point in martin throwing out this red herring. To get everyone off topic from the real issues. We do not have a constitutional crisis in this country. Lets get back to the real issues like health care and taxes.
What an act of desperation this was. |
|
|
|
|
