Is Martin Bluffing
- Thread starter red
- Start date
He may or may not use it as an excuse to call an election (but I doubt it). However it would not be the main issue of the election. Strongly religious people against it and homosexuals in favour may cast their votes based on this issue. However, I really can’t see the majority casting their votes on an issue that when it get right down to it, is not very important to them.red said:
Harper's thinly disguised contempt of gays does not play well here in Ontario, maybe in Alberta but not here. Harper will be obliterated in an election called on this issue, hoisted on his own pitard.
This minority govt game will be won by the team who makes the fewest mistakes. Harper just coughed up the puck to Martin.
This minority govt game will be won by the team who makes the fewest mistakes. Harper just coughed up the puck to Martin.
Y
yychobbyist
Ralph Klein keeps threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause in this regard as welll despite his Attorney General telling him there's no basis. In my view, if you ever use the notwithstanding clause it better be about something that is of earth shattering importance to society in general and not about something like homosexual rights.
As for Martin, he doesn't exactly seem to be in a position where he's really able to go to the polls about this or any issue right now.
As for Martin, he doesn't exactly seem to be in a position where he's really able to go to the polls about this or any issue right now.
Is not NWS clause federal jurisdiction thereby limiting any prospective invocation to a federal political party in the federal parliament. Oh my, do we need a constitutional expert here?yychobbyist said:
Not quite so black and white. Court ruled that current legislation neither includes nor excludes same sex unions. No legislation is required. But SC ruling has become judge-made law barely enfranchising same sex marriage, hence all the gay marriages country wide. Alot of people agree real legislation is required and now. Also, potential for country-wide court challenges remains on other legal grey areas of marriage. Liberals have stated favoured legislation enfranchising marriage as union of two people. Harper et al have stated favoured legislation enfranchising "traditional definition of marriage". It is this traditional definition of marriage = man-woman that the SC ruled never really existed.bbking said:
Y
yychobbyist
Anteaus, the notwithstanding clause can be invoked by any provincial government or the federal government. It is not available solely to the feds. Saskatchewan has, in fact, invoked it with respect to a decision of the Supreme Court concerning its Potash industry.
I believe that Quebec had to use the NWS clause for their sign laws. However, I think I heard somewhere that courts ruled that marriage was federal jurisdiction. Clearly, a province can't legislate in federal jurisdiction even with the NWS clause.antaeus said:
Martin has said it would be a free vote in the house so it couldn't automatically cause the gov't to fall. Martin's cabinet ministers are expected to tow the party line but Liberal backbenchers can vote against. So the Liberal minority could lose the vote and it still wouldn't be seen as a non confidence signal. If the Liberals did lose the vote, Harper would be seen as the villan so it is a no win for Harper and a can't lose for Martin.bbking said:
I think Martin mentioned the "election over gay marriage" thing just to emphasize how idiotic Harper's stance really is. Harper is being dishonest when he says he can get around the notwithstanding clause. Martin knows this perfectly well so he is quite prepared to turn up the heat on Harper by making it a major issue. Harper is losing credibility and beginning to look like a real amateur on this:
[Tues, Jan 25/05]"...A group of prominent law professors is accusing Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of misleading the public by suggesting Parliament can outlaw same-sex marriage without invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.
"You must be completely honest with Canadians about the unconstitutionality of your proposal — which will only guarantee that same-sex marriage ends up back before the courts, as opposed to being resolved by Parliament," says the bluntly worded letter, which the 134 academics intend to send to Mr. Harper today..."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050125.wxharper-law25/BNStory/National/
Y
yychobbyist
Exactly, the most a province could do is get out of the marriage business altogether and simply deal with civil unions. Which is kinda like the fat kid taking the ball home because he got picked last.someone said:
Why is that "clear"? The Federal government legislates in provincial jurisdiction all the time (e.g. health care, education, etc.). All politicians seem to LOVE sticking their noses in places where they don't belong....someone said:
Actually, the constitution explicitly provides for both. Under federal jurisdiction (item #26) is Marriage and Divorce... and under exclusive provincial jurisdiction (#12) is The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province (as well as #13 - Property and Civil Rights in the Province).someone said:
Regardless, since the provinces are the ones that issue marriage licenses... you would expect their influence on "setting the rules"....
Best regards,
F.
Quite the contrary. Once again, you show you just don't understand much.bbking said:
That's exactly what I said. Under section 91, item 26 of the Constitution, that is clearly identified.bbking said:
Yes. EXACTLY. Also what I said under section 92, item 12 - The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province. I know you're a little dull, but "solemnize" means to duly perform. They issue licenses... they issue the REQUIREMENTS of GETTING A LICENSE. That is their job. That is their power. That is their constitutional RIGHT. The Feds can define marriage however they like... but the provinces can AND DO stipulate requirements - age, mental capacity, premarital counsel/course requirements, consent requirements, and (if they want)... sex*. They don't give a licence... no marriage. Regardless of the federal "definition". End of story*.bbking said:
Where have I suggested otherwise? The Feds get to decide what "married" means... the Provinces get to decide the requirements of GETTING MARRIED in that province.bbking said:
Wrong (as always). Nowhere does the Federal government have jurisdiction over education... and the only jurisdiction they have over health care is in Marine Hospitals (section 91, item 11). Yet they pass legislation in these areas regardless, despite their lack of jurisdiction.bbking said:
Dance out of what? Mr. Someone suggested that the Provinces have no jurisdiction on the topic of marriage... I pointed out that this notion is simply not true. The provinces are the ones who actually DO marriages, and as such... very much their jurisdiction - regardless of how the feds "define" it.bbking said:
As for your article... you might be better served to read the actual constitution. I know, I know... too many "big words" for you... but if you have someone "dumb it down" for you, you might find it informative...
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#distribution
Good bye, genius.
F.
*before you run off in a tizzy, this would of course be subject to court challenges, etc.
Y
yychobbyist
Technically, in those areas the federal government is bribing the the provinces to do what they want and/or threatenning to withhold past bribes if they don't. If Ralph wants to go his own way on health care, all he has to do is be prepared to lose the billions the feds currently give him for health care.Fortunato said:
Absolutely agreed - and hence, the understandable resentment from the provinces (it's not just Alberta... Quebec is even more forceful on issues like education and child care).someone said:
Even still, the areas are outside federal jurisdiction... and legislation like The Canada Health Act are technically unconstitutional.... Personally, I think people should be outraged that the Federal Government is not only taxing us for things outside of their jurisdiction, but that they are also using that to force their way into matters that they should not be involved in to begin with.
But alas, too many these days think that governments should be able to do whatever they want, are indifferent, or are ignorant of basic things... like our consitution....
Best regards,
F.
Really? Where??? I haven't changed any of my posts, and I don't see where I said that.bbking said:
What I said that the Feds butt into Provincial jurisdiction whenever it suits them (without any reference to same sex legislation). Let me quote (without omission):
"The Federal government legislates in provincial jurisdiction all the time (e.g. health care, education, etc.). " - Fortunato
In THAT context, I am still correct. As I am in everything else that I posted.
Stop making things up, and learn to read.
F.
