The Founding Of The Constitution Act

The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is without a doubt one of Canada’s most important section entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights enacted into the Canadian Constitution as part of the Canada Act in 1982. However, the Charter was Canada’s second attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens all throughout the country and on every level of government. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which preceded the Charter was enacted in 1960. However, being only a federal statute rather than a full constitutional document, it had no power and application to provincial laws. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, therefore rarely unlawful laws were declared inoperative and continued to exist. As a result, the ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights led to many movements to improve the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada. However, similar to its predecessor, the Charter is not without faults, and loopholes. In some cases, it has even infringed upon certain liberties and democratic rights and freedoms. In other cases, the Charter has incited conflicts between liberty and democracy and raised questions that speculate whether it is truly democratic.

The first section of the Charter embodies two capacities that are vital to the definition and interpretation of the ‘reasonable limits clause.’ Section one “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it” as well as stating that the criteria for limiting a person’s rights and freedoms must be “prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic

An article of Confederation was adopted by the Continental Congress, on November 15, 1777. It was the first constitution of America. Though, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not take place until March 1, 1781. After some all the states realised that article of Confederation is inadequate to resolve the national and international issues. As a result on March 4, 1789, Articles of Confederation was replaced by the new Constitution of 1787. This new constitution was signed by the members of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia. In new constitution, members tried to strengthen the central government. The new constitution was the demand of time. It was more practical. It was broader than the article of Confederation. Under article of Confederation, states were free to form their military. But under new Constitution of 1787, this power was taken from states and given to centre. In new constitution, foreign affair and defence department was given to federal government. No state was given power to sign treaties with other nations. Some changes were also brought in the composition of congress under new constitution. Now, seats in congress were decided on the basis of population of each state.

The story of the Canadian Constitution is a long and rocky one. It began in 1864 during the Charlottetown conference in 1864, lead to the implementation of the British North America Act in 1867, before finally being patriated in Canada in 1982 (Dodek 2013, 21, 28). However, it was patriated without the signature of Quebec, putting the future of Canada in peril. Future attempts to open the constitution were messy, and ultimately failures, but there are still some who think Canada should give one more kick at the can (Dodek 2013, 31). The paper will argue that Canada as a country should not re-open the constitution.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982 and was put into place by the Trudeau government. The purpose of the Charter was to protect the rights of Canadian individuals and to establish independence from Britain. However, one section of the charter sparked much controversy, this was section 33, also known as The Notwithstanding Clause. The purpose of this clause was to allow the state to override a right protected by the charter, for various reasons. These reasons include economic, social or because other rights were found to be more important (Blakeney, 2010) In order for the notwithstanding clause to be put into effect the legislature must declare that they plan to use this clause, and after five years the

There lies an infamous section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has been generated the greatest amount of debate in its time (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms CRF 2014). This section is known as section 33 of the charter the “notwithstanding clause” as it has gained controversy since it “emergence from a November 1981 Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers” (Johansen & Rosen 20012). This clause is also referred to it as the override power (CRF 2014). The “notwithstanding clause” is a legislative power that allows the Parliament or Legislature to override certain Charter sections (University of Alberta UOA 2014). Law makers can enact the clause

The Constitution Act of 1982, or more commonly known as, “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” constitutionally entrenched fundamental civil liberties, which have protected Canadians from both federal and provincial legislative imposition. Since the Charter’s inception, however, Canada’s judiciary has been placed under great criticism and scrutiny due to the fact that the courts were believed to have been given legislative powers that rivaled both the federal and provincial legislatures. Through Judicial Review, the Supreme Court of Canada was given the task to interpret the charter since that wording of the legal document itself was vague enough to warrant interpretation, and hence, gave critics a reason to believe that supreme court justices have been the power to legislate without any political or public recourse. Unfortunately, as a result of these criticisms, various public notions, such as appointed and not duly elected Supreme Court justices with the ability to legislate, became the main focus in questioning whether the supreme court’s institutional functions were legitimate, and in tandem with the principles of a free and democratic society.

The criminal justice system is known as the most fascinating and controversial component of Canada’s legal establishment. The meaning of the concept of justice is perceived and viewed differently by every individual but an overall implication states that justice is “the protection from the power of the state for some and vengeance to others, or those who are concerned with individual rights from those who emphasize the need for individual responsibility and social accountability” . The Canadian Justice System does its best to perform as adequate as it can and keeps the safety of individuals intact. The Charter of

This paper will discuss Canada’s protection of its citizens’ rights, or lack thereof, specifically in regard to the recent amendment to its Citizenship Act in the form of Bill C-24, or the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act”. Through this amendment, Canada acts to limit its protection of the rights of its new and dual citizens.

Since the creation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7 has had a brilliant and vital lifespan. Furthermore, cases such as Carter have shown the brilliance and significance of the section in preserving the rights of Canadians. In this essay, I will be discussing section 7 of the Charter, and constructing an argument as to why the section still has its flaws. Thus, although section 7 of the Charter has had an illustrious career, it is still prone to issues that are based upon it being limited to violations that are in accordance with “fundamental justice”. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall firstly, introduce section 7 and also introduce the broad legal and social issue at hand, while also presenting the cases that I will be exploring throughout the essay. Secondly, I shall analyze section 7 on the basis of the research completed by scholars, media reports, and other relevant research materials. Furthermore, I will demonstrate as to how this research has assisted in analyzing and contextualizing the cases I’ve identified. Lastly, I shall conclude by discussing further questions I would like to pursue in the future, and the direction I will take with this.

According to D.W Perras, “the courts will now have power to strike down laws made by parliament or the legislatures (…), such ‘striking power’ is a radical departure from democracy as we understand it in Canada” (Perras, 1980). This epitomizes that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ultimately undermined Canada’s intended democracy. The Journal of democracy describes the term democracy as “an ensemble of institutions aimed at giving legitimacy to the exercise of political power” (Dahrendorf, 2003). Therefore, the gained power by the judiciary limits the power of a democratic society; and “the decision to strike down becomes subjective and therefore unpredictable” (Perras, 1980). When reviewing the power of police offers and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one must evaluate section eight and nine (Glen, 1986). According to Luther Glen, section eight and nine of the Charter correspond to “the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned” (Glen, 1986). Although these rights are relative to individual freedom, Glen states that they have “taken on stats of significant proportions under the charter” (Glen, 1986). Under section eight and nine of the charter, police decisions are questioned; “for the most part, they have merely given police general duties ‘in relation to the preservation of

Thank you for taking time to write to me and let me know that you have completed Hillsdale College’s course entitled Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution. As you now, this valuable courses teaches us the meaning and history of the United States Constitution, and allows us to have a deeper understanding of our Founding Fathers and the special gift of liberty and personal freedom they created for this country.

Jamie Cameron 's The Charter 's Legislative Override: Fear or Figment of the Constitutional Imagination? and John Whyte 's On Not Standing For Notwithstanding, critiques the NC. Cameron argues that legislative authority cannot prevail in the contest between competing supremacies under the Charter; whereas Whyte, who

In Canada, at this moment in time you will find a lot of political milieus. We are less than two months away from an election. While the normal problems like economic recession, healthcare, prison sentences, restorative justice needed for the damage a colonial government has caused for centuries is need, as well as the need for affordable housing are all important issues. Many who are familiar with our individual rights under our laws, namely our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being totally eroded by the passage of a Bill, called Bill C-51, finds many of us very concerned.