It was argued in the Supreme Court that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. There can be no estoppel against the Constitution which is the paramount law of the land. The court observed that “No individual can barter away the freedom conferred on him by the Constitution”. Now in the case of plea-bargaining the Right to Appeal is waived of completely once the accused has given his word about being guilty for the offence. But the accused does not have an inherent right to appeal against his conviction and the same has to be conferred by a statute.
The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have.
The Court said that a state law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between the two races did not conflict Fisher 4 with the 13th Amendment abolishing involuntary servitude by a seven to one vote (“Plessy v. Ferguson” par. 3) . The Court avoided discussing the protection granted by the clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits the states to make laws depriving citizens of their “privileges or immunities . ” The Court said that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was “to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law… Laws … requiring their separation … do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race (“Plessy v. Ferguson” par. 4).” In my opinion, I do not agree with the majority ruling . If I lived in the time period when segregation was prevalent, I most likely would have agreed with the ruling. Blacks and whites were separated at the time, so many people were adapted them not being allowed to intertwine . Today, I believe that we are all created equally, and that we should not be judged by the color of our skin. The Plessy v . Ferguson case started the “separate but equal” statement, and it lasted for decades.
The commission had told him that he can't make this complaint since it wasn't under the Individual's Right Protection Act because it didn't include the sexual orientation act. The judge found that the judge had protection against discrimination on the basis which was an unjustified violation of section 15 of the charter. The respondents have claimed and voiced their opinion by saying that the case concerns the legislative under section 15 that it
King infers that some laws may look justified at a glance, but are really unjust when they’re put in context. He gives the example of his arresting for parading without a permit. King implied the issue isn’t how he broke the law of not having a permit to parade, the unjust happens when the law was used to maintain segregation and deny those citizens of their right of peaceful protest. The unjust happens when citizens are stripped of their natural- born, and constitutionally- written rights (King 928). King asserts that in no way is he advocating for defying laws, but he is for breaking unjust laws.
He remarked that courts should not accept non-pathological criminal incapacity as a defence as there is no difference between non-pathological criminal incapacity resulting from stress or provocation and the defence of sane automatism. If one chose to accept the defence, one must approach with extreme caution. Expert evidence is vital to the defence and the court must take into account what happened before and after the incident. Policy considerations should be referred to rather than legal principles. He questioned whether the defence should be done away with or whether it should be kept for deserving
Such crucial decisions may concern faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters. The right of privacy protected by the Constitution gained a foothold in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. (1965), in which the Supreme Court struck down a state statute forbidding married adults from using birth control because the statute violated the sanctity of the marital bedroom. Acknowledging that the Constitution does not mention the word privacy anywhere in its text, the Court held that a general right to privacy may be inferred from the express language of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as from the interests protected by them.
flag in The United States and abroad. However; the major limitation in Government prevention of desecration of the flag because of the Supreme Court Case Texas v. Johnson (1989) which ruled that the Government could not create laws against the defilement of the flag because the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the first amendment. To me protecting and ensuring that the flag is properly protected is of extreme importance and I feel as though there should be a government protection of the Flag. It is upsetting that people can freely disrespect the flag as they please because there is nothing that can be done to prevent desecration
The overwhelming answer to this would be absolutely not, lighting trashcans and cars on fire is illegal, so why is it not illegal to burn a flag during your “peaceful” protest? Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia concurring. ‘Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,’ said Brennan (A history of the flag
But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Even he recognized that blatant originalism truly doesn’t work. Simultaneously, non-originalism can run into the problem of over-extrapolation and judicial legislation, a power the framers specifically did not want the Judicial Branch to have. In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton explains how the Judiciary is the least dangerous and powerful branch of government: “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the