Bloody Liberals...
Gah, looks like I'll be voting Conservative this time around. I really don't want to, and was planning to vote Liberal, and I would absolutely hate to see a Conservative-Bloc government (which seems to be the probable outcome of the Conservatives getting more seats than the Liberals, and less than an absolute majority).
But Paul Martin wants to get rid of the not-withstanding clause. And I think I'd rather have a Conservative (even Conservative-Bloc, ugh) government than that.
To me, the not-withstanding clause is the ultimate "put-up or shut-up" tool. If you really want to do something, and the courts say no, you can show you're serious and use the NWC. All you have to do is explicitly say you're overriding the Charter, then the Canadian people can decide if overriding the Charter was the correct thing to do, and if not, boot you out of office (which, let's be honest, is probably what's going to happen -- I think Canadians like the Charter a lot more than politicians). And your legislation will automatically expire. But the power rests with Parliament, and more importantly, the responsibility rests with Parliament.
Without a NWC, you get silly "flag-burning" legislation where the legislators take obviously unconstitutional stands to score political points, and leave it up to the courts to play the role of the bad guy. And then you get the silliness that has taken over the States with arguments about activist judges, etc.
The NWC forces our government to pass laws that do not violate the Charter, unless they absolutely believe that violating the Charter is the correct thing to do (and as elected representatives, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt--at least to the next election). That is their responsibility. Without the NWC, they lose that responsibility, and can pass laws knowing that they violate the Charter, and leave it up to the courts to fix their blatant pandering to random interest groups. I want a government that governs, and not one that plays stupid political games.
"I think our Constitution strikes a balance between the British system, where there's just parliamentary supremacy and politicians can always get their will, and on the other hand the American system, where the courts are always supreme," Harper said. "I think our charter provides a balance, and that's why I support the present construction of the charter."
Damn it. This is absolutely correct. Gah, can't believe I'll have to vote for Harper & Co. Stupid Martin.
But Paul Martin wants to get rid of the not-withstanding clause. And I think I'd rather have a Conservative (even Conservative-Bloc, ugh) government than that.
To me, the not-withstanding clause is the ultimate "put-up or shut-up" tool. If you really want to do something, and the courts say no, you can show you're serious and use the NWC. All you have to do is explicitly say you're overriding the Charter, then the Canadian people can decide if overriding the Charter was the correct thing to do, and if not, boot you out of office (which, let's be honest, is probably what's going to happen -- I think Canadians like the Charter a lot more than politicians). And your legislation will automatically expire. But the power rests with Parliament, and more importantly, the responsibility rests with Parliament.
Without a NWC, you get silly "flag-burning" legislation where the legislators take obviously unconstitutional stands to score political points, and leave it up to the courts to play the role of the bad guy. And then you get the silliness that has taken over the States with arguments about activist judges, etc.
The NWC forces our government to pass laws that do not violate the Charter, unless they absolutely believe that violating the Charter is the correct thing to do (and as elected representatives, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt--at least to the next election). That is their responsibility. Without the NWC, they lose that responsibility, and can pass laws knowing that they violate the Charter, and leave it up to the courts to fix their blatant pandering to random interest groups. I want a government that governs, and not one that plays stupid political games.
"I think our Constitution strikes a balance between the British system, where there's just parliamentary supremacy and politicians can always get their will, and on the other hand the American system, where the courts are always supreme," Harper said. "I think our charter provides a balance, and that's why I support the present construction of the charter."
Damn it. This is absolutely correct. Gah, can't believe I'll have to vote for Harper & Co. Stupid Martin.