Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
It also has this.....

These rights are generally subject to the limitations clause (section 1) and the notwithstanding clause (section 33). The limitations clause in section 1 allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights. Every case in which a court discovers a violation of the Charter would therefore require a section 1 analysis to determine if the law can still be upheld. Infringements are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be “demonstrably justified. ” Section 1 has thus been used to uphold laws against objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R. v. Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R. v. Butler). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed.

We don't even really own our 'own' property, under our constitution.

Freedom was handed to us by our parents, and grandparents, in the late 40's, and we have squandered the meaning of it.

/rant

14 posted on 12/20/2007 5:22:38 PM PST by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: fanfan
Well put. Those are some of the reasons why it’s impossible to predict how the SCOC will rule on this case(or, inevitably, a similar one).

And, yes, property rights were deliberately left out of the Constitution.

35 posted on 12/20/2007 9:15:53 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson