• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2023 UCP Alberta election

They could simply use the existing not-withstanding clause in the Constitution, which is what other provinces have already done to protect specific areas of provincial responsibility.

The Notwithstanding Clause can only be used against a selection of Charter rights. It doesn’t apply to provincial and F federal responsibilities under Ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act.

At present, Smith has advanced a platform. No legislation has actually been tabled. There’s not statute to challenge yet. The courts cannot step in against proposed legislation; there needs to be something justiciable before the Courts.

She may well pass legislation that will purport to upend certain constitutional divisions of power, but anything egregious will shake out in court, and potentially reasonably quickly. More nuanced matters will take time.

If Alberta’s legislature wants to legislate things that are within their power - a pension plans a provincial police - they can go nuts. If they try to legislate ultra vires the provincial authorities, like trying to exempt themselves from valid federal statutes, they’ll end up looking kind of dumb. Will that help fuel some rabble rousing from the less informed part of the electorate? Sure. Will it achieve an actual ‘win’ in the end? Unlikely.
 
She's trying to go three for three in destroying political parties.
 
This isn't the first time that Alberta gone a bit off the rails. During the thirties at point it tried to print it's own money under Social Credit
 
I have no idea about her policies but I'm for anyone who wants power put back into our ELECTED officials and away from APPOINTED ones. F#&k lawyers and their monopoly on this country.......
 
I have no idea about her policies but I'm for anyone who wants power put back into our ELECTED officials and away from APPOINTED ones. F#&k lawyers and their monopoly on this country.......
Isn't Smith technically an unelected official?
 
Notice I used the plural......I want "officials", not "official".
Sooooo you think we should do away with the court system vis a vis laws? Once a law is passed, they only way to affect it would be to have the legislature amend or cancle it? It would be up to Parliament, for example, to ensure that a law actually was in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
 
Sooooo you think we should do away with the court system vis a vis laws? Once a law is passed, they only way to affect it would be to have the legislature amend or cancle it? It would be up to Parliament, for example, to ensure that a law actually was in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Yes....thats why they get elected. Why should one to five appointed lawyers be running the Country instead of 338 elected people?

Democracy...
 
Yes....thats why they get elected. Why should one to five appointed lawyers be running the Country instead of 338 elected people?

Democracy...
"Running" the country is the job of the bureaucracies. Let me check... Yep, no judges there.

"Making laws" is the job of the elected legislature. Let me check... Yep. No judges there either.

Comparing passed laws against the constitution and the charter with a fine tooth comb to ensure that a bunch of legally illiterate sycophants (politicians) didn't make either benign or malignant mistakes... Let me check... Yep, judges are there for that.

Do you not understand how our system works, or are you just mad that some judges said "you can't do that" to a law you wish stayed in force?
 
Yes....thats why they get elected. Why should one to five appointed lawyers be running the Country instead of 338 elected people?

Democracy...

Judges aren’t running the country. Parliament legislated the constitution and Charter, and the courts interpret that. Leaving any legal amendment whatsoever to the legislature would be utterly unworkable. How would you propose that works when someone gets charged with some sort of crime and their defense is based on some misconduct by the state? Judges still need to interpret that. Unless we want the same thing to have to be argued every single time, it only makes sense that judges can set precedents that will be binding on the same facts in later cases.

Legislation is fine for broad strokes and big picture, but you need a more responsive system to deal with the rubber actually meeting the road. Legislatures cannot anticipate all the ways in which things will actually play out. And if two layers of legislature clash, someone needs to figure out where the chips fall constitutionally.

If Parliament finds itself stymied by the courts, it can - if it musters enough political support, which threshold varies depending on what they’re trying to do - amend whatever part of the system is needed to go so. Parliamentary Supremacy is still a thing. But Parliament also chose to make it not easy to simply amend certain things willy nilly.
 
Spin spin spin...
So, by "spin" you either mean we're spinning our facts to fit our positions, which is NOT the case considering the preposterousness of not having a body/institution for judicial review, or, you fundamentally agree with us and you're just enjoying seeing us "spinning", meaning you're trolling us, and isn't that against policy, Mr. Directing Staff?
 
So, by "spin" you either mean we're spinning our facts to fit our positions, which is NOT the case considering the preposterousness of not having a body/institution for judicial review, or, you fundamentally agree with us and you're just enjoying seeing us "spinning", meaning you're trolling us, and isn't that against policy, Mr. Directing Staff?
Not trolling at all......I just don't make long-winded posts thinking it will make my argument somehow seem better.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20221008-214702_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20221008-214702_Samsung Internet.jpg
    511.5 KB · Views: 11
Yes....thats why they get elected. Why should one to five appointed lawyers be running the Country instead of 338 elected people?

Democracy...
I'm not exactly sure what you are wanting. Do you want absolute and unfettered supremacy of Parliament; as in not subject to review by the courts or anybody else except the electorate?

Section 4(1) of the Charter says that the House or a legislature cannot exceed five years. If a majority government passed a law that nullified that, what's your remedy if not the Court? Sounds like a form of government in some country we read about in the paper.
 
Not trolling at all......I just don't make long-winded posts thinking it will make my argument somehow seem better.
Yes, that’s how common law systems work. That‘a how our country is built from the ground up. But you’re confusing case law with the courts somehow legislating. They do not. They interpret law where specific facts make it necessary to do so, and when two laws conflict, they determine which one comes out on top, which in the case of constitutional matters is exactly what Parliament intended when they set the whole thing up. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
 
I'm not exactly sure what you are wanting. Do you want absolute and unfettered supremacy of Parliament; as in not subject to review by the courts or anybody else except the electorate?

Section 4(1) of the Charter says that the House or a legislature cannot exceed five years. If a majority government passed a law that nullified that, what's your remedy if not the Court? Sounds like a form of government in some country we read about in the paper.
If Parliament finds itself stymied by the courts, it can - if it musters enough political support, which threshold varies depending on what they’re trying to do - amend whatever part of the system is needed to go so. Parliamentary Supremacy is still a thing. But Parliament also chose to make it not easy to simply amend certain things willy nilly.
Apparently it can already happen.
 
Back
Top