172,447 views Jul 30, 2024
In this video Christine explains the decision in R v Power, a case where the federal government argued that they have absolute immunity from being sued for damages for unconstitutional laws. The federal government lost this case, and the Supreme Court found that there is some immunity but it is limited.
Interesting that the equivalent of presidential immunity is being challenged in Canada just after the US Supreme Court handed down a three tier test of actions committed by the President.
I think this is good. Being able to hold government accountable for clearly unconstitutional laws is indeed necessary for keeping government aligned with the rule of law and prevents arbitrary totalitarianism and laws passed in bad faith.
We have indeed had problematic laws (the video gives Japanese internment camps and forced sterilization laws as examples). Trudeau / the Liberals really seem to want to do things that do push the boundaries of the rule of law. Very timely that this has come down right now.
How about U.S. citizens ability to bring suit against the executive branch when the president signs and EO that is clearly unconstitutional.
For example when Biden signed EO wiping college debt of millions. Or Obama granting blanket amnesty for millions of so called Dreamers. I would argue that both new damn well that their actions were unconstitutional.
The problem in Canada is so much deeper than Trudeau, and sadly the vast majority of conservatives in Canada are blissfully unaware(seemingly just the way they like it).
The 2 party illusion is in full swing in the GWN. The CPC is every inch the same Globalists that the Liberals are.
The CPC will win, continue what the Liberals did - and will be provided cover and excuses for it, by the Canadian conservatives that have been so pavlovianly whipped, that they will run rushing into the fire out of the frying pan.
Politicians are taken from the general public; the general public in Canada is reflexively leftist. We've been indoctrinated for over 50 years (arguably since Pearson was PM) that "government is good". You are not going to get elected if you stray toooooo far from what the general public likes/wants.
So, ya.
All you are going to get in the House of Commons is "leftist leftists" (NDP), "leftists" (LPC), and "right-leaning leftists" (CPC) because that is all the voters will tolerate. Oh, there are other parties (PPC, Libertarian, CHP, etc.) but they don't get enough backing to get elected.
The problem is culture. Politics is downstream of culture. It took decades to get to this point; it will take decades of working within the culture to get back out of it.
172,447 views Jul 30, 2024 In this video Christine explains the decision in R v Power, a case where the federal government argued that they have absolute immunity from being sued for damages for unconstitutional laws. The federal government lost this case, and the Supreme Court found that there is some immunity but it is limited.
You can read the full case here: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/...
Interesting that the equivalent of presidential immunity is being challenged in Canada just after the US Supreme Court handed down a three tier test of actions committed by the President.
Maybe it's a (welcomed) trend?
I would have thought that there would be some mention of the vax nonsense. Many lost jobs & others harmed
Agreed--perhaps this is one of a number of ducks being lined up. I hope so, anyway.
Very interesting; thanks for posting.
I think this is good. Being able to hold government accountable for clearly unconstitutional laws is indeed necessary for keeping government aligned with the rule of law and prevents arbitrary totalitarianism and laws passed in bad faith.
We have indeed had problematic laws (the video gives Japanese internment camps and forced sterilization laws as examples). Trudeau / the Liberals really seem to want to do things that do push the boundaries of the rule of law. Very timely that this has come down right now.
How about U.S. citizens ability to bring suit against the executive branch when the president signs and EO that is clearly unconstitutional.
For example when Biden signed EO wiping college debt of millions. Or Obama granting blanket amnesty for millions of so called Dreamers. I would argue that both new damn well that their actions were unconstitutional.
WHY would they possibly want that?
The problem in Canada is so much deeper than Trudeau, and sadly the vast majority of conservatives in Canada are blissfully unaware(seemingly just the way they like it).
The 2 party illusion is in full swing in the GWN. The CPC is every inch the same Globalists that the Liberals are.
The CPC will win, continue what the Liberals did - and will be provided cover and excuses for it, by the Canadian conservatives that have been so pavlovianly whipped, that they will run rushing into the fire out of the frying pan.
It's deeper than that.
Politicians are taken from the general public; the general public in Canada is reflexively leftist. We've been indoctrinated for over 50 years (arguably since Pearson was PM) that "government is good". You are not going to get elected if you stray toooooo far from what the general public likes/wants.
So, ya.
All you are going to get in the House of Commons is "leftist leftists" (NDP), "leftists" (LPC), and "right-leaning leftists" (CPC) because that is all the voters will tolerate. Oh, there are other parties (PPC, Libertarian, CHP, etc.) but they don't get enough backing to get elected.
The problem is culture. Politics is downstream of culture. It took decades to get to this point; it will take decades of working within the culture to get back out of it.