Paul Martin wants American-style Judicial Power
Paul Martin challenged Stephen Harper to a constitutional amendment that would remove the ability of the federal government to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause (NwC) to override the courts on Charter rights...
This would give absolute power to the judiciary, and in turn absolute power to the PMO who appoints the judiciary. A Prime Minister could appoint numerous justices to long term posts and change the face of Canada through their decisions.
This happens in the United States. It's why liberals (Democrats) in the US have been so fearful of George Bush nominating strong conservative justices to the SCOTUS.
As Stephen Harper said, the NwC is what balances the Canadian system between the British (where Parliament has absolute power) and the US system (where the judiciary does).
Methinks this was Paul Martin falling on his own grenade...
This would give absolute power to the judiciary, and in turn absolute power to the PMO who appoints the judiciary. A Prime Minister could appoint numerous justices to long term posts and change the face of Canada through their decisions.
This happens in the United States. It's why liberals (Democrats) in the US have been so fearful of George Bush nominating strong conservative justices to the SCOTUS.
As Stephen Harper said, the NwC is what balances the Canadian system between the British (where Parliament has absolute power) and the US system (where the judiciary does).
Methinks this was Paul Martin falling on his own grenade...
posted by Technical Bard | 22:11
3 Comments:
Thanks for your title on your previous post.
There isn't as much negative press on the notwithstanding thing as I'd expected (at least not that I've come across). I wonder if it's simply because it was such a shock and journalists are still chewing on it, or whether they just didn't take him seriously.
Seems to worry enough bloggers, though.
The CBC seemed to deal with the issue quite a lot last night. It seemed everyone remembered Martin's promise to use the Clause to defend churches should the courts require that they perform same-sex marriages. All of their pundits mentioned it, plus some of the viewers whi wrote to Rex Murphy.
And now he says he wants to open a new round of constitutional negotiations to remove a tool he himself promised to use.
To quote Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hébert, "I think the proposal was not well thought out."
An informal poll of Vancouver lawyers suggests that Martin has lost most of the legal profession with this one. The typical legal opinion seems to be "What the hell is he thinking?"
Post a Comment
<< Home