Summary Of Michael Mandel's Charter Of Rights

Michael Mandel sees the Constitution as a problem. He proposes that the Charter of Rights was sold to Canadians on the basis that it is more self-governing and its soul function is “transforming power of the Charter to the people” and thus, giving government officials less power. The way that the Charter was “sold” he states was for it to act like an official document to guide individuals for protection of themselves, however, Mandel argues what becomes of judges and their function to enforce legal rights? In this case, he identifies with the Charter of Rights as a document that takes pride in its function in legalized politics. I do not agree with this statement, for the reason that one can express their right as an independent variable, this

He acknowledges the issue and counter argues that the Charter is not used for individuals to deny their rights, instead, it is a tool for individuals to refuse any judicial conception towards the Constitution. To further his argument, he states that individuals are even confused by the means of the charter. For example, under section 7 of the Charter, both pro-choice and pro-life parties are arguing on the basis of abortion, Mandel says there is no room for controversy in the Constitution and whether you fight for security (pro-choice) or the right to life (pro-life), under the Charter neither parties are right or wrong. Mandel’s interest concerns the importance of the Constitution when it is separate from its use of the public. He argues again that democracy is more about legalized politics, and the technique of legal reason and principle in order for the State to maintain power. What are the principles behind the charter? Mandel says, that the individual can overturn what the majority wants, and this is an approach he does not agree with. He urges, individuals should use the Constitution defensively but not offensively, as it could be

Mandel points out another question that relates to judicial process and the systematic principles within government regulation. He continues, in American context, judges are appointed and not elected which means there is no room for diversity. Mandel argues in this case, the Charter is not about the Rule of Law, it is about the rule of lawyers and the technique of legal argument. Although the Courts rule based on precedent, there are two ways that Mandel says the Charter is challenged when dealing with judicial review and the way judges interpret legal rights, the first challenge expresses the fact that there is no diversity when dealing with original text and the second, concerns the personal opinions of the judiciary as more substantial than those of non-government officials because of their political stance and it’s matter of “reason over passion”. In some degree, Mandel is correct when he states there is no diversity when having judges appointed rather than elected as this deters the function of the variation of individuals and the differences of