22
Have you read Canada’s constitution? (piefed.ca)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/askacanadian@lemmy.ca
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 months ago (7 children)

And, if anyone hasn't read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, put aside five minutes and read it.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/download-order-charter-bill/canadian-charter-rights-freedoms-eng.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God

    :/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    You dropped the most important word of that sentence; the word that means, "This sentence has no legal bearing."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children)

    You mean the "whereas"? Doesn't that just mean that this is a given and everything coming after is based on this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    "Whereas" marks the paragraph as part of the preamble. The preamble of legislation has no operative effect. It can be used to explain the purpose of a law which can be used when interpreting intent, but it can't be used to create new powers or take rights away from people. It was tested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_la%C3%AFque_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_v_Saguenay_(City) where iiuc there was an attempt to use the preamble to justify prayer in City Council meetings, and the SCC gave a unanimous ruling that it was a breech of citizen's rights despite the "supremacy of god" whereas.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    If you say that we have law X because of reasons Y, then doesn't it invalidate X when Y no longer holds?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    No, the preamble cannot make laws inactive. If you wanted the legislation to have a limited term (like a sunset clause) or only apply in certain circumstances, you would have to put that in the actual body of the legislation. Legislation can only be changed by act of the legislative assembly, even if it has become archaic or obsolete. I think the judiciary can strike down entire acts if the assembly refuses to fix constitutional issues, not sure how that works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent