Constitutional Law 101: A Lesson for Layton
NDP Leader Jack Layton yesterday announced that his party intends to introduce legislation this fall to ban private healthcare, in the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's finding in June that Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance violated that province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Despite posessing a Ph.D. in Political Science, Dr. Layton appears to need a constitutional law primer: that a) health care falls within provincial constitutional jurisdiction and b) his proposal would require the use of the notwithstanding clause if the Quebec decision is applied in other provinces.
Lost in a sea of his own demagoguery, Jack would be wise to take his proposal back to the drawing board.
posted by ROC @ 12:02 pm
7 comments
7 Comments:
Paul Martin has made similar statements, and yet he has vowed never to use SS33. There is no lack of intellectual dishonesty in that crowd.
You've ditched your Latin names.
I'm so sad.
Oh, Ben, nostra lingua latina in anima vivit. Rest assured our fetish for classicism has not abated.
"health care falls within provincial constitutional jurisdiction" - doesn't the constitution say jurisdiction over health care is shared by both feds and provinces?
bagh! nevermind. you're right.
I love watching Jack Layton trip over himself. Not that long ago anyone who uttered "notwithstanding" was almost associated with Goebels. This year I have a feeling he may change his tune.
In this case, Jackie boy should realize that he'll need to run for office in a provincial legislature to pass that anti-choice piece of legislation he's dreaming about.
Certus est.
But the three letter names just don't provide as much scope for the imagination, says I.
Post a Comment
<< Home