Subordinate Interpretation In Canada

The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.

It is independent of the legislative and executive branches. Judges are public officers appointed to preside in a court of justice, to interpret and apply the laws of Canada (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.). Talking about the qualities required by a judge, they are required to have the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives. They should be highly knowledgeable about the law, willing to undertake in-depth legal research, and able to write decisions that are fair and convincing. Their judgment should be clear, and they should be able to make informed decisions that will stand up to close scrutiny and issues arising from the disputes.

This also brought about a provision under the Supreme Court Act that states that the Supreme Court of Canada has the power to declare judgment and instruct both the federal and provincial governments (questions of law and fact) (Remillard, 2006). Overall, in Canada, the role of the Supreme Court has be altered numerous times since 1982 (and a bit before that) in order to make our country the way it is today. In the end, through trying British tradition and American liberalism, Canada eventually found its own approach of managing our judicial

Polygamy in Canada: Is It a Crime or a Protected Religious Freedom? Canada’s polygamy law, particularly as it relates to a sect of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), in Bountiful, British Columbia, has recently been the subject of much controversy. A case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia will soon determine whether Canada’s polygamy law is constitutional, or whether it violates section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees “freedom from discrimination based upon religion, race, and country of origin” (Harvie 31). Currently, under section 293 of our Criminal Code, the practice of polygamy is prohibited, and is punishable by a maximum five-year prison sentence (Harvie 30). On one

The Senate in Canada should be abolished Introduction: Canada senate is a part of legislation institution in Canada, which represents the interests of upper class people. Different from America, it is not produced by election but directly-nominated by the premier and appointed by governor. Senate, governor, and the House of Commons are like three legs of a tripod which constitute the congress and legislation system in Canada. Senate undertakes the responsibility of proposing expostulation to governor and cabinet, which acts the role of supervision and restriction. Senate played critical role when Canada established federal government in 1867, the diversity of senators warrants the smooth convey of popular will to governors and legislators coming from different ethnic group and social status.

The case was discharged. 4. Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States has an obligation to uphold the Constitution giving authority to identify acts of Congress that don’t concur with the esteem values and the law. REASONING: 1.

§ 34-13-3-5(a) prohibits a lawsuit against a public employee for actions committed while the employee was acting within the scope of employment, for his reasoning to dissent or reverse judgement. The language of that provision is clear and unmistakable, and upon that limitation we are all agreed. “I part company with my colleagues, however, in their conclusion that subsection (a) is limited in application to, practically speaking, only those cases where the complaint uses language parroting the words of the statute.” Put another way, according to the majority, the prohibition against suing public employees applies only when the complaint, on its face, asserts that the allegedly negligent

The constitution is the highest level of authority in Canada, every branch of the government is compelled to follow it; the judicial system is inclined to enforce it, the executive has to obey it, and only the government can approve its amendment- on varying levels dependant on the areas being amended. As times change so does the relevancy of articles within the constitution. I argue that the government should not be responsible alone in approving such changes. Since Canada is systematically run under the constitution, and is a democratically run Responsible Government, appropriate decision-making about its amendments should be carried out by the people through national referendum. The British North American Act of was established in 1867

It does not claim that Canadians have been born with a special democracy gene. Nor does it pander to a self-centred concern to be noticed and thanked on the international stage. What it does do is assert a particular political value—one that is common to several members of contemporary international society—and claim that Canada should reflect and advance that value in its foreign relations. In voicing such a justification, Canada would be communicating that it, too, has something to say about liberal values and that the Bush administration does not have the monopoly on the strategies for extending the global reach of those

Exclusionary Rule, states that if any evidence is illegally obtain for any case cannot be used in court. The case of “Weeks VS United States” is one example of how the exclusionary rule works. (Explain the case) I personally think rule goes well in hand with the fourth amendment. But with the exclusionary rule some would say that it cancels out the Patriot act. According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.