A Federal Court judge has dismissed a case challenging the legality of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s snap election call last fall.
Among the reasons Judge Michel M.J. Shore cited for dismissing the case was that it was outside the court’s jurisdiction.
“The matter of convention in this set of circumstances is political in nature and is outside the jurisdiction of the court, bearing in mind the separation of powers under constitutional supremacy,” he wrote.
The case, brought forward by Democracy Watch, a citizens group that monitors ethics in government, claimed Harper broke his own fixed-election-date law by calling last fall’s election.
Duff Conacher, the group’s founder, had said the only way an election could have been called then was if the government had fallen on a vote of no-confidence.
Under Harper’s fixed-election-date law, which the Tories promised in the 2006 election campaign, the vote was not supposed to be held until Oct. 19, 2009.
When the law was introduced and passed in 2007, the minister of democratic reform, Rob Nicholson, who is now the justice minister, said the measures restricted the prime minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence occurred before October 2009.
But government lawyers argued that the fixed-date law does not restrict the prime minister from asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, as Harper requested last year.
[Source]
Great decision.
And the Liebrals bite another chunk of turf. Gotta give’em credit though. They’re full time, all of the time, slimey!!
One down, one to go. The SCC next needs to throw out the Khadr issue, again because it has no juridiction sticking its nose into Canada’s foreign policy which should be the sole perogative of the government.
Bill C-16 — Pick up, people:
“At present, federal general elections in Canada can be held at any time. In the case of a minority government, this can mean a new election after only a few months in office, as happened in 1979 with the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark, or in 2005 with the Liberal government of Paul Martin. In the case of majority governments, it means that elections can be held after only three years, or delayed until the end of the fifth year.”
Hmmmm. Do my taxes pay for court challenges by nut bars called Democracy Watch? Methinks the name “Democracy Watch” is an oxymoron.
Watch and think:
Who the hell is the ACLU and WHO funds them? I don’t know.
Are they like ACORN?
I’d venture a guess that the answer to your question Jack, and many others is found here….
The ACLU vs America: exposing the agenda to redefine moral values
By Alan Sears, Craig Osten
http://tiny.cc/Xwh7O
I’ll wait for someone who knows to weigh in. My view is that there is little difference between the ACLU and ACORN. The FBI should go after them both using the RICO laws.
That would end “that”.
It was one woman who objected to Prayer in school, in the US, and it was gone.
Roe vs Wade, one case.
One person objects and the majority of Americans or Canadians have to suffer forever.
If this Cross is destroyed, it could cause the same outrage as happened in Afgan when the taliban destroyed a Budda Statue.
Good point.
I wonder if that mother who objected to her son having to pray in school ever dreamed he son would grow up to be a minister.
In the Roe vs Wade, the so called pregnant woman eventually said she had never been pregnant, and is now a strong supporter of the Pro-Life Movement.
Duff likes the sound of his own voice and he’s a champion of the far left so the media love him. Having gone through this exercise was likely good for his bank account…
re: amendment to items 7 and #9, Who the hell is the Green Peace and WHO funds them? Are they like ACORN?