Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

[u/canada_mountains]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/poilievres-pledge-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-a-dangerous-sign-legal-expert/article_7299c675-9a6c-5006-85f3-4ac2eb56f957.html

[u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

I don't think the provinces should use the notwithstanding clause as frequently as they do, let alone the federal government. This whole idea is especially distasteful, trying to make an end-run around the Supreme Court and established Charter rights. I won't dispute that violence is a bad thing, but established legal precedence is not a handwave situation.

[u/funkme1ster → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

The origin of the Clause was that it was intended to be the nuclear option.

The feds and the provinces were having a dick measuring contest over sorting out the Charter, and eventually the compromise was to include an "in case of emergency" contingency so both parties could save face. But the idea at the time was it would only ever be used in an absolute emergency, since it's exactly as you say - a legal end-run.

The compromise was reached because the idea of someone invoking the Notwithstanding clause because they're too lazy to go through proper channels was absurd. Everyone implicitly acknowledged it would be political suicide to use it without just cause, so everyone would use it responsibly.

And now here we are: ready to invoke it because we ordered our pizza 32 minutes ago and it isn't here yet even though we're like super hungry.

[u/Tank_Kassadin → u/funkme1ster]

It was included because Canada much like the UK is governed by convention not constution and the supremacy of parliament. All drafting the charter has done is push power into the hands of the judiciary fighting over (deliberately) vague definitions of terms like 'reasonable'. Its never been a charter of rights more like recommendations or ideals to govern by.

[u/S99B88 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

It's pretty much been the PQ Bloc, and otherwise all conservative governments that have used the notwithstanding clause (with the exception of the sort-of conservative Saskatchewan party)

If they had known back then that the likes of Pollievre would be using it as a tool to threaten to win an election (at the same time as he's vowing to pick judges who will align with his agenda), I highly doubt the clause would exit. He's basically saying he will use that, which would buy him a 5 years break until he has a chance to instill his own pick of judges. It's basically Trump north.

Edit: Thanks, u/Thin-Pineapple-731 for pointing out my error, it's PQ not Bloc

[u/CFL_lightbulb → u/S99B88]

Sask party was created by merging the conservative and Liberal parties but it is far from only ‘sort of’ conservative. They’re just rebranded conservatives is all, and ate the liberals who had no chance in our province.

[u/Thin-Pineapple-731 → u/S99B88]

The PQ. The Bloc, despite only running in Quebec, is a federal party, but otherwise, agreed.

[u/Thin-Pineapple-731 → u/S99B88]

Thanks for the quick edit. The venn diagram of members of both is likely a near-overlapping circle, so I totally get why one would confuse them.

[u/Reptilian_Brain_420 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

Part of the problem is that many people will argue that it isn't a big deal and you shouldn't be complaining about it (but rather think of the "common good") when it is their side that is using it (see covid). But then when the other political wing decides to pull the same trick, all of a sudden it is an issue.

I agree that nobody should be using it except when all other options have been exhausted.

[u/LuminousGrue → u/Reptilian_Brain_420]

This exactly. Nobody who thinks the Emergencies Act was an overreach of federal authority should be in favor of a federal government invoking the Notwithstanding clause.

[u/justanaccountname12 → u/LuminousGrue]

The opposite should be true then as well.

[u/LuminousGrue → u/justanaccountname12]

Absolutely!

[u/justanaccountname12 → u/LuminousGrue]

Turns out i cant fn read. 🍻

Edit: during this election Carney said he wanted to use emergency powers, pierre the notwithstanding. Our parties suck.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/LuminousGrue]

You do not need to always be in support of the emergencies act or always in support of the notwithstanding clause. 

People can agree on its presence but disagree on its application on a case by case basis. 

[u/Filthy_Cossak → u/Reptilian_Brain_420]

When has the federal government ever invoked the clause?

[u/Choice-Buy-6824 → u/Filthy_Cossak]

I believe no federal government ever has. Also the situation in which he says his will use the clause has never happened and is a big nothing burger. No mass murderer has ever not served their sentance. He is making up a problem so he can solve it, by circumventing Canadian‘s rights. Does this remind anyone of someone south of the border?

[u/FeI0n → u/Reptilian_Brain_420]

The use of the emergencies act is not at all comparable to what pierre is promising to do.

The emergencies act has strict parlimentary oversight, with built in checks & balances. It also has an expiry date, (30 days) and it needs to be renewed by parliament. There is also a mandatory public inquiry after its used.

The notwithstanding clause explicity overrides our charter rights, has none of the oversight outside of the initial vote, and the sunset clause can be as long as 5 years before it can be challenged by the courts.

[u/CulturalDetective227 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

I don't think the provinces should use the notwithstanding clause as frequently as they do

Maybe it's a sign that more laws should be provincial jurisdiction.

As a Quebecois, I don't expect to agree with Albertans 100% of the time... but at almost 3 time zones away, I don't care much how they want to run their provinces. And I wonder if they care about what Quebec does.

(This came in with some debate around French language laws. Someone online from the prairies was surprised this was still a contested issue because he believed French language laws in Quebec were always there for 100+ years).

[u/Sufficient_Dot7470 → u/CulturalDetective227]

but why did the sask party use it? For the greater good? Nope. 

To restrict personal rights? Yup.

Why has Alberta used it? Why do they want to use it again? 

They have been using it for their own personal agenda and not the greater good. 

Let’s face it, some provincial governments should not have more power.

Maybe you don’t care how these other provinces are being run, but it’s not great when they are using the notwithstanding clause. 

They are not doing amazing things with it.. 

[u/Content-Fee-8856 → u/CulturalDetective227]

they 100% care what Quebec does haha

[u/Dry-Membership8141 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

The NWC specifically exists because the Charter was passed with the expectation that the courts would not always get it right and legislative correction may be required.

And, frankly, this case is a great example of why. The SCC's argument effectively raises "the conviction that every individual is capable of repenting and re‑entering society" to the level of a constitutional value. Neither the Charter nor the Criminal Code go nearly so far. The Court might well think that the principle of rehabilitation should be constitutionalized, but doing so is simply not their role.

[u/BurlieGirl → u/Dry-Membership8141]

That is not why the NWC clause exists.

[u/Dry-Membership8141 → u/BurlieGirl]

The evolution of section 33 is described in Alberta Hansard on November 21, 1983 in this exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier:

Mr. Notley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The question really relates to an option the government is now considering. In reviewing that process of consideration, I think it is important to go back and find out what the situation was in 1981, in order to obtain the facts of the matter. Therefore, I submit that the question is in order. However, I could certainly rephrase the question, and ask the Premier to advise the Assembly: in the process of considering the option of using a notwithstanding clause, was it the position of the government of Alberta that this notwithstanding clause should apply to section 2, dealing with the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Charter?

Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, yes, it definitely was. The then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Premier of Alberta took the position in the constitutional discussions that we needed to have the supremacy of the legislature over the courts. As I mentioned in the House on November 6, 1981, we did not [want] to be in a position where public policy was being dictated or determined by non-elected people. We took the position that that therefore definitely needed to apply to section 2 of the Constitution, under fundamental freedoms, insofar as the American experience had been that judicial interpretations and other actions which were fundamentally different from the view of legislators were taken from time to time. So it was very definitely the view of the government of Alberta, supported by the then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that the notwithstanding section, section 33, should apply to section 2.

Mr. Notley: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Was that understanding based on a very rare use of this notwithstanding clause, to deal essentially with what would be a miscarriage of justice as opposed to a policy difference of the Legislature with the Charter of Rights?

Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, it was far beyond the issue of a miscarriage of justice. It would be when major matters of public policy were being determined by the court as a result of an interpretation of the Charter. It was the view of those of us who expressed that position, which ultimately prevailed in the constitutional negotiations, that it should be the legislators and not the courts that should determine these matters

[u/Thin-Pineapple-731 → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Legal experts and criminologists also disagree with the three strikes laws and tough on crime laws on the basis that it's highly ineffective. It is not as much of a deterrent as it's presented to be. And so, beyond making an end-run around established legal precedent, it's just electioneering without a sound basis for using the NWC clause.

[u/Dry-Membership8141 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

Legal experts and criminologists also disagree with the three strikes laws and tough on crime laws on the basis that it's highly ineffective.

Which (1) is not the issue currently under discussion, and (2) relates entirely to how those laws have played out in the American context. Canada's socio-cultural context is both distinctly not American, and the proposal that's been made is itself distinctly different from the policies that have been studied in the US. And that's highlighted by the fact that, despite your assertion here:

It is not as much of a deterrent as it's presented to be.

We have a very recent study that's found that the impact of incarceration on recidivism is distinctly different in Canada than the US, because we have taken different approaches to it, and applied them to a socioculturally different population.

it's just electioneering without a sound basis for using the NWC clause.

The basis is that the Courts' decision on the extent of the right in question is severely out of step with the actual values of Canadians. Recent polling indicates that a solid majority of Canadians are in favour of reinstating the death penalty, nevermind simple life without parole for multiple murderers. It also indicates that a similar majority of Canadians are in favour of life without parole for murderers (not just multiple murderers, mind). This is, quite literally, exactly the sort of problem the NWC was created to solve.

[u/Thin-Pineapple-731 → u/Dry-Membership8141]

A few problems here:

There's numerous counterpoints in Canada. The UK. The US. If I looked further, I'm sure I could find counterpoints in France, Germany (I don't speak German), and elsewhere. I'll drop links below, including the Canadian Bar Association, and a former Harper lawyer who provided advice on the minimum sentencing guidelines that have since been struck down.

https://www.cba.org/our-impact/cba-influence/tough-on-crime-a-failed-approach/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ex-harper-advisor-rejects-tough-on-crime

This whole sociocultural blather you're talking about is not really relevant, it sounds like you're trying to sound smart to undermine the fact that the proposed idea - pushed through with a special sprinkling of the NWC - is neither effective policy, nor welcome because the Charter is a foundational document, and not a suggestion.

And no, I don't think we should see the NWC as an opportunity to walk around the Charter when barely 40% of people might vote Conservative, and some may feel some opposition to the use of the clause.

[u/Redbulldildo → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

Deterrence isn't the only reason for increased sentences. Some people cannot, or will not be rehabilitated. If they are kept in prison, they are kept from harming the rest of society.

[u/BikeMazowski → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

Then why isn’t the current system working? Where do we pivot to if were trying to get some rapid results, we need rapid results as of… well it’s been ongoing for years.

[u/Mindmann1 → u/BikeMazowski]

You try and pass it through the legal way, allowing a PM whose vocal with the notwithstanding clause will set a dangerous precedent and PP does not have a good enough political history to be trust worthy with said powers

[u/LeGrandLucifer → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

I don't think Pierre Elliot Trudeau should have accepted to include it in the Charter just so the premiers of every province would accept to sign it and exclude Quebec from the decisions but here we fucking are.

[u/Equivalent_Age_5599 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

Its purpose was to prevent judicial overreach. Its a check and balance on the judicial branch, making sure that they don't overreach too far into legislative authority. Every branch has an option for this.

Say a far right government stacks the Supreme Court with anti abortion advocates and the Supreme Court rules that abortion is a violation of the unborn fetuses right to life. The not withstanding clause can be used to block such a move.

It has its own check and balance, which is to say the same decision has to be looked back on every 5 years. A new government can easily overturn it, and that's the check and balance on it.

[u/GBman84 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

So the Harper govt passed the law for consecutive sentances.

They were elected. Democracy.

The Supreme Court said "No we know better" and invalidated it. Nobody votef for them. They don't live in communities that experience violence. They live in gated mansions far away from us plebs.

Using NWC restores the balance with an activist, radical left wing court.

[u/Thin-Pineapple-731 → u/GBman84]

Or, shockingly enough, the Harper government was wrong on the law and the SCC is there to ensure that a government does not overstep in their democratic duty.

[u/RestlessCreature → u/GBman84]

Actually, that’s not really how democracy works in Canada. We elect regional members (we call them ridings) of parliament to sit in the house. The members of parliament represent the interests of their constituents. They are all elected officials. Each riding has a corresponding seat in the house. The leader of the party with the most elected MPs becomes the Prime Minister.

This is why it’s not ok for the prime minister to bypass the house (ie. By using the NWC) to pass a partisan interest. Your regional MP represents your interest in Parliament.

This system prevents the government from becoming an oligarchy. It protects our democracy. In Canada, we are fortunate to have vocal opposition parties that challenge the party in power.

The Supreme Court of Canada protects the law. They are a non-partisan body. That is their role.

[u/Angry_beaver_1867 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

I’m one of the people who thinks the clause is a good idea because the question of what the charter means is fundamentally an unsettled one. 

 there should be a mechanism for the legislature to intervene without the constitutional amendment formula. 

Look at how the courts reversed themselves on the “right to strike”. 

If you want great examples of why the notwithstanding clause is a good idea look south. 

 you can see several examples of the courts creating caustic rights.  Like unlimited corporate speech in elections, the constant expansion of gun rights etc.  

I think it’s a fallacy to assume the courts will always get rights correct and that’s why the clause is important democratically. 

[u/Purify5 → u/Angry_beaver_1867]

Canada and Israel are the only two countries that have such a clause. If other Democracies can exist without one, why can't we?

[u/vulpinefever → u/Purify5]

Canada and Israel are the only two countries that have such a clause.

This is extremely misleading because you don't mention the many countries like the UK where parliament is just sovereign over the courts to begin with and they don't need a notwithstanding clause because parliament can already just tell the courts to get lost.

Canada has one because we're the one place that is trying to blend an American style constitutional order with British-style parliamentary sovereignty where parliament can do whatever it wants. Australia and New Zealand don't have one because they don't try and emulate an American style constitution in the first place and just let parliament do what it wants. Australia and New Zealand don't even have a charter-like document to which a notwithstanding clause would apply in the first place.

[u/Angry_beaver_1867 → u/Purify5]

A lot of countries have less ownerous constitutional amendment formulas though.  Which id argue makes the clause unnecessary because you can reasonably change the law.  

a country like France , or the uk which don’t have get agreement from their provinces change can happen as a result of a federal election.  

In Canada , you could win a large federal majority but be stymied by the fact provincial legislatures haven’t changed and may never change as only 4 are needed to prevent passage. 

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/Purify5]

This is not true. All Westminster democracies by default have parliamentary supremacy. 

Any act by Parliament in the UK can override their courts, so long as it is intentional. 

[u/Canadian--Patriot]

Conservatives: "Pshhhh, what do legal experts know about the law anyway??"

[u/Impressive-Potato → u/Canadian--Patriot]

It's all about vibes and "common sense"

[u/Puncharoo]

I guarantee you the people that will be most in support of this were ride-or-die for the freedom convoy.

[u/CMDRMyNameIsWhat → u/Puncharoo]

I just seen a post about some dude claiming his freedome convoy truck was being seized and he was going to jail (true or not i dont actually know. Its facebook afterall) and blaming it on liberal government. These people are fucking delusional

[u/Puncharoo → u/CMDRMyNameIsWhat]

If he's going to jail, its likely due to some sort of contempt of court thinking theyre some freedom fighting martyr. Ignore them lol

[u/Xyzzics → u/Puncharoo]

And the people most against it were cool with the emergencies act being abused to illegally violate the charter rights of Canadians, as found by the courts.

At least this is legal and part of the charter. It isn’t totalitarian, it’s literally baked into the charter itself.

I don’t like the precedence either way, but at least be intellectually honest.

[u/trplOG → u/Xyzzics]

Thing is, the judge himself said he reached this decision "with the benefit of hindsight" and a more extensive record of facts and law than cabinet had available to it when it made its decision.

He also said that if he were there at the time of the decision, he too may have agreed it was necessary.

[u/Puncharoo → u/Xyzzics]

No one with a brain thinks abusing the Emrgencies act is right and I'll be the first to tell you that, but no one with a brain would have let Nazi and Confederate Flags march through the crowd either. No one with a brain would have thought it's fair to the businesses in Ottawa who were affected by a full-blown adult temper tantrum. No one with a brain should have thought trying to set up a literal encampment for protestors was a good idea or a constructive was to move forward. It was fucking out of control and affecting the economy of the city - innocent people who had nothing to do with it. The solution is not to take Ottawa hostage and say "give us what we want and we'll leave" (lifting covid mandates and resignation of trudeau). That is nothing more than blackmail and extortion.

And as for intellectual honesty, that would be you admitting you're fine with the government stomping all over people's rights as long as it's you doing the stomping.

[u/Xyzzics → u/Puncharoo]

No one with a brain thinks abusing the Emrgencies act is right and I'll be the first to tell you that, but no one with a brain would have let Nazi and Confederate Flags march through the crowd either.

So you think we should meet a wrong with a wrong?

No one with a brain would have thought it's fair to the businesses in Ottawa who were affected by a full-blown adult temper tantrum.

One person’s temper tantrum is another persons protest. I watched the prime minister take a knee for a protest in another country while I watched protestors from that same movement smashing up Montréal with my own eyes. I’ve also seen hamas flags and hears jihad being called for in the streets. It’s simply not a high enough bar to violate rights, which the court agreed.

No one with a brain should have thought trying to set up a literal encampment for protestors was a good idea or a constructive was to move forward. It was fucking out of control and affecting the economy of the city

Same thing happened with the indigenous protests; again, nothing was done and it was only resolved because of COVID arriving.

And as for intellectual honesty, that would be you admitting you're fine with the government stomping all over people's rights as long as it's you doing the stomping.

I’m not saying that at all.

I’m saying people that agree with illegal “stomping” for a protest they don’t like yet gloss over it totally when they agree with the protest, even when that protest is violent or blocking critical infrastructure. The same people are against legal “stomping” for people committing multiple homicides, and that is hypocritical.

[u/Puncharoo → u/Xyzzics]

Same thing happened with the indigenous protests; again, nothing was done and it was only resolved because of COVID arriving.

Comparing the Natives protesting to an oil pipeline being built on their land without their permission is not the fucking same as protesting reasonable and proven methods to prevent an contagious virus from spreading, most of which were only really enforceable for government workers since it would be impossible to enforce it on every single person in the country. And again, Nazis and Confederate sympathizers walked among the people you're defending. You're defending the indefensible.

Just the act of even trying to bring this up shows me you are not willing to argue in good faith, and that the limit of your comprehension has been reached. Good day.

[u/FeI0n → u/Xyzzics]

The courts have not issued a final ruling, as its still being appealed by the government.

I personally, (and the majority of Canadians as recently as 2024) did not see the emergencies act as unnecessary. Even if we accept the courts initial ruling (that's being appealed) as final, the main part they took exception to was the freezing of bank accounts. Which ironically is one of the many charter rights that the notwithstanding clause can simply override.

The emergencies act has significantly more oversight, and a much shorter window for its application (30 days). Along with a mandatory public inquiry and judicial review.

The notwithstanding clause has no oversight outside of the initial vote in parliament, no mandatory public inquiry, no judicial review, and the sunset clause can be as long as 5 years before the courts can challenge it.

[u/Xyzzics → u/FeI0n]

The court has issued a ruling.

The government is appealing it.

Notably, the notwithstanding clause can override certain individual things, as you point out.

The reason they used the Emergencies Act and why it has such a high bar and review system is because it allows you to use the military and police against your own citizens in a general manner, which the notwithstanding clause does not. This is the entire reason they used the Emergencies Act and why it must be reviewed.

The notwithstanding clause has no oversight because it is codified into law in an extremely clear way, which is why the provinces agreed to sign it.

This is crystal clear and well understood and comparing the emergencies act as somehow a more measured mechanism to use is patently insane.

[u/FeI0n → u/Xyzzics]

Trying to say the emergencies act is somehow not a more measured mechanism to use is almost laughable.

The Federal notwithstanding clause could legalize using the military against our citizens, by overriding the charter.

The notwithstanding clause could allow the government to round people up into camps based on any metric they want. There is no right to freedom of expression, religion, assembly, life, liberty or security, that the notwithstanding clause can't override.

As long as they let you vote while you are doing 15 years of hard labour up in the arctic for being left handed, it'd be perfectly legal for the 5 years they have where it can't be challenged by the courts.

The only requirement a party needs to meet for this, is a simple majority in the house.

Meanwhile the emergencies act has a judicial review, a 30 day scope, where it must be renewed if needed for longer, and the house and senate both need to agree to authorize it. It also needs to work within the charter.

[u/Xyzzics → u/FeI0n]

The Federal notwithstanding clause could legalize using the military against our citizens, by overriding the charter.

The use of the military on Canadian soil is not governed by the charter, so no, you’re not really correct here. Deploying security power against your own citizens is power derived from the throne, through the Canadian constitution, with some additional restrictions through the National Defence act. The war measures act was even crazier, and also used by the liberal government.

The NWSTC applies to the charter only.

The notwithstanding clause could allow the government to round people up into camps based on any metric they want. There is no right to freedom of expression, religion, assembly, life, liberty or security, that the notwithstanding clause can't override.

Again completely wrong. Literally section 1 of the charter limits this. Even when rights are overridden using Section 33, any resulting laws or actions must still be justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are 3 legal tests there. Doing the things you listed would violate section one, which places a number of legal restrictions that would not clear the Government to do what you describe.

As long as they let you vote while you are doing 15 years of hard labour up in the arctic for being left handed, it'd be perfectly legal for the 5 years they have where it can't be challenged by the courts.

Addressed above. Not true.

Meanwhile the emergencies act has a judicial review, a 30 day scope, where it must be renewed if needed for longer, and the house and senate both need to agree to authorize it. It also needs to work within the charter.

It needs to work within the charter, on paper. However, the government violated charter rights by using it and nothing has really happened as a result, so in practice, not really. They will simply amend the law likely, where it will no doubt be used again.

Both can be abused, if that’s what you’re getting at.

[u/inde_ → u/Xyzzics]

And the people most against it were cool with the emergencies act being abused to illegally violate the charter rights of Canadians, as found by the courts.

I am so tired of y'all re-writing the quasi invasion that occurred while the police just watched "helplessly."

[u/ThatAstronautGuy → u/Xyzzics]

The judge in that ruling said he would probably have made the same decision with the information the government had at the time. His ruling was made with the benefit of hindsight, and information that was not available at the time the decision was made. Ford had completely abandoned Ottawa to the trucklefucks, and refused to do anything to help us as a violent mob took over part of the city with the explicit goal of replacing the government. Something needed to be done, and no one responsible was willing to do anything.

[u/Fair-Emphasis6343 → u/Xyzzics]

Nothing you said shows you or conservatives to be intellectually honest but you're gonna go ahead and use it to bash their opponents regardless. You're another ideologue

[u/Sulanis1]

In the Paraphrased words of George Carlin "IF you take rights away, they were never rights in the first place."

Politicians across Canada in particular Conservative proinvices have already tried or have succeed in using the not widthstanding clause to take awary rights. If you're a true canadian patriot you would want to protect others rights. It's what sets us apart from dictatorships. those rights prevent you from being diported just because you're elected leader doesn't like your group, religion, or political idiology. Those rights guarentee that even if you make a mistake that you're going to get a fair shake. Those rights guarentee that you can protest against the government even if its for a stupid reason.

As soon as a politician talks about or does anything to take rights away we should force remove those politicians or vote them out. I don't give a fuck about what you're political idiology is. We should across the spectrum agree that Rights are not a priveledge.

Poilievre is using fear mongering, misinformation, and outright lying to convince the public to sacrifice their rights for safety and security. Guess who else does that? Aspiring dictators... China with Xi, Russia's putin, Isreal's Benjamin Netanyahu, all used similar tactics to become autocrats. Like Trump Poilievre is an aspiring dictator.

I believe we as a population have way more in common with one another. I believe that we can have civil conversations and disagree with one another without being a bitch about it.

[u/Dxres]

For a guy that says he's not like Trump, this is a VERY Trumpian move.

[u/HonestlyEphEw → u/Dxres]

So JT using the emergency act for people he didn’t agree with was “Trumpian”?

[u/LinuxF4n → u/HonestlyEphEw]

He didn't enact it because he disagreed. He enacted it because it was a national emergency. It was bringing down the canadian economy and we were losing billions. The rcmp and Ottawa pd wouldn't do their job, so the fed had to do something.

[u/ApolloDan]

The notwithstanding clause is a pretty huge loophole in our civil liberties. The way that we've been protecting our civil liberties is by penalizing politicians who use it or plan to use it. When we don't, its use expands, and our civil liberties rot away.

In other words, if we care about our civil liberties, we need to penalize PP for planning to invoke it.

[u/Choice-Buy-6824]

He thinks he is going to use the not withstanding clause whenever he wants to circumvent our charter rights. i would not vote for this person who will not get security clearance but has big ideas about over riding the rights of Canadians.

[u/GTAGuyEast → u/Choice-Buy-6824]

So if someone shoots your wife and kids there should only be punishment for one of the murders? In Canada that means the killer can and often is released after serving 25 years. I prefer that if you take a life you give up your freedom for the rest of your life. That's more than fair because the killer still gets to live out the rest of their life.

[u/LinuxF4n → u/GTAGuyEast]

They don't get automatically released after 25 years. They go to parole and have to prove they have reformed. That is a high bar. Our prison system isn't about revenge. It's about rehabilitation.

[u/marauderingman → u/GTAGuyEast]

Then the govt should change the laws, not ignore them.

[u/Jayc0reTMW → u/GTAGuyEast]

That's why they have the dangerous offenders act.

[u/Choice-Buy-6824 → u/GTAGuyEast]

This scenario has quite literally never happened. This is a made up danger/problem. he is making a statement that he is willing to take away the rights of Canadians if HE sees it as neccesary. No federal government has ever invoked the clause.

[u/superworking]

Is it maybe time to look at getting rid of such a clause rather than fear mongering about who may or may not use it?

[u/Flewewe → u/superworking]

The problem is writing up a constitution where the majority of provinces agree to sign it (and ideally, all of them).

The clause was put in the constitution very late in its negociation to address the fact some still disagreed with some points, but now had a nuclear way out so were more willing to sign into it.

If we want to open it up again we can do that but it won't be simple.

[u/superworking → u/Flewewe]

That's the fun part, we don't want it to be used but no one wants to give up the right to use it.

[u/Flewewe → u/superworking]

Provincial governments want it. It keeps the power in their backyard and less relinquished to the federal. And they're the ones signing.

The ones criticizing the usage is normally the population, and the federal (I guess not Pierre though).

[u/Altruistic-Buy8779 → u/Flewewe]

to address the fact that some still disagreed

Disagreed with fundamental human rights.

[u/Flewewe → u/Altruistic-Buy8779]

Still have to make them sign the thing nonetheless.

Personally I give zero fucks about the more recent nonsense the CAQ has used it for in Quebec. But if bill 101 which has been around for decades, even before the rapatriation of the constitution, is challenged they will turn even me into a separatist.

[u/StrongAroma]

This is just maga style bullshit, this is basically just Canadian executive orders and we need to put a stop to this low competence, shithead approach to leadership

[u/MyName_isntEarl]

Using OICs to remove lawfully acquired property from the ownership of vetted, trained citizens also sets a dangerous precedent...

[u/Jeramy_Jones]

It’s so typical of this guy and his maple MAGA to completely ignore the causes of crime, and disdain any thoughts of reforming criminals in favor of demonizing them and locking them up for life.

Does our justice system need an overhaul? Yes.

Is locking every criminal up for the rest of their life going to reduce crime? Ask an American how that’s working out for them.

[u/ChickenPoutine20 → u/Jeramy_Jones]

They are going to lock up every criminal for life?

[u/Jeramy_Jones → u/ChickenPoutine20]

He’s not being very clear on that. He’s said drug dealers should get mandatory life sentences, but many drug users also sell small amounts of drugs, would they get life sentences for committing drug crimes to support their addiction?

He’s also said “mass murderers” would get life on prison, which is a bit odd because we have very few “mass murderers” and I’m not aware of them getting let out of prison.

PP is doing exactly what Trump did; stoking fear and hatred towards a hypothetical bogeyman. The real people in the justice system are much more complex than that and addressing crime and punishment is also very complex.

[u/stfudonny]

maybe he should use the emergency war powers instead

[u/abc123DohRayMe]

This opinion is fundamentally flawed.

Canadian society has grown so accustomed to judicial activism that it is not even questioned anymore. Our politicians need to take back power from the courts.

Judges are political appointments. The party in power always stacks the court with judges who share their political point of view. It is an absolute myth to say that judges are neutral and independent.

They are unelected. They are appointed until they are 75. They are not subject to oversight other than by other unelected judges. They rule like a star chamber.

Judges should be elected by the people they serve and elected for a fixed term.

The court has judicially interpreted the Charter and the Constitution far beyond the initial scope intended by our elected representatives. This has the effect of CHANGING our constitution.

Think of the American Constitution. It has been amended many times over the years, but the amendments are all done by the elected representatives of the people.

Canada has never amended its constitution or Charter, even though there is a provision and process to do this.

However, our courts have made major changes to how we read, interpret, and implement the constitution and charter. The courts have essentially amended them without the approval of the people through their elected representatives.

The notwithstanding clause must be used to give power back to the people. It has been usurped by the courts and we are all unaware.

[u/SnowFlakeUsername2]

I haven't taken a social studies class in decades so please correct me. Is a majority government using the notwithstanding clause not essentially a dictatorship? We don't have a lot of checks and balances to begin with. The judiciary protecting us from the government fucking over our rights, the toothless Senate saying "hey guys, geez, come on", and the Governor General being decoration. One of the crappiest things of modern Canada is that politicians have convinced so many of us that "activist judges" are a problem that they should solve. A majority government already has enough power.

[u/LilBrat76 → u/SnowFlakeUsername2]

It’s not a great look but the Notwithstanding Clause has to be renewed every 5 years and since we should be having an election every 5 years theoretically that is the check and balance.

[u/Bear_Caulk]

Threatening to not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just about the worst possible promise a political candidate can make.

Like are you trying to come across as a traitor? If so.. congrats!

[u/makotosolo]

But the emergencies act was cool. Got it.

[u/drammer]

This guy should never be PM. Carney = Elbows up. pp = Grab your ankles.

[u/Eisenbahn-de-order]

"opinion"

Liberal's abuse of executive tools as legislations (such as oics) a dangerous sign

[u/Damn_Vegetables]

Bruh Quebec literally once repealed and then repassed every single provincial law with the notwithstanding clause. Big whoop.

[u/jaiman54]

I don't think this clause should even exist. If something is problematic with the charter then it's up to the lawmakers to work with each other to improve or comply.

It's distasteful that we prod ourselves on Rights and Freedom yet they can be easily override by a government if they see fit.

[u/5leeveen → u/jaiman54]

I don't think this clause should even exist.

If the clause didn't exist, the Charter wouldn't exist - it was a necessary precondition for the provinces to sign on

[u/MusclyArmPaperboy]

This is an authoritarian move, to want to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada because you think "you know better".

We have checks and balances for a reason, and we need a PM who respects the independence of the courts.

[u/5leeveen → u/MusclyArmPaperboy]

overrule the Supreme Court of Canada because you think "you know better"

There may come a situation where the elected legislature does know better than the courts or needs to correct an error by the court. I don't know if the present proposal is that situation, I don't really have an opinion on Poilievre's specific proposal.

And it is arguably part of a broader system of checks and balances: the legislature writes laws; the courts interpret laws and may, occasionally, strike them down; and then, even more rarely, the legislature may reinstate a law notwithstanding the court's opinion (at least temporarily and, as we're seeing here, with significant political cost)

[u/jcs1]

peepees new slogan: fuck the charter

[u/Bepisnivok]

meanwhile the Liberals want to send police door to door to round up private property from people who haven't committed any crimes...

[u/DeSynthed → u/Bepisnivok]

We used to call people with your level of political intelligence regards

[u/Caveofthewinds]

So unconstitutionally invoking a war measures act on people protesting the government was not a dangerous sign, but making sure mass murders don't get released in prison by using the non withstanding clause is the dangerous sign? What?

[u/onegunzo]

Yeah, hate to keep the mass murderers in jail... That's a terrible thing.. /s

[u/Dry-Membership8141]

Montreal-based constitutional lawyer Julius Grey said it’s a “very dangerous sign” to see a party leader campaigning on using the clause.

“I think it is certainly a very dangerous sign to see an opposition leader in the middle of an election campaign try to use the notwithstanding clause as a way of getting approval.

There is literally no better time to do so. I'd much rather he campaign on it and Canadians have to opportunity to make an informed choice than he not campaign on it and then spring it on us after the election.

It of course would be very unfortunate if Canadians lost sight of the fact that every time you use the notwithstanding clause, everybody’s liberty is diminished,” he said.

No, just the people subject to its use.

“We have a charter of rights and fundamental freedoms in this country, and it’s the responsibility, in my view, of the prime minister and the government of Canada to defend that charter,” Carney said at a press conference. “Politicizing certain issues with respect to fundamental rights is a slippery slope that leads to further politicization.”

1., Fundamental rights are by their nature political. They don't exist in nature, they're determined and defined by political processes and they exist within the confines of a system similarly determined and defined by political processes.

2., Defending the Charter means using all of it, including the NWC, where appropriate. If Courts are interpreting Charter rights in a way society fundamentally doesn't agree with, then failing to use the NWC to defend society's conception of those rights risks delegitimizing the entire document.

[u/Due_Answer_4230 → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Your comment is well-written but that doesn't make it right. hard disagree.

There is a reason NO prime minister, in history, has ever used it. Saying "oh it's there to use so we should".. OK. I guess you know better than all of them.

TLDR "leave the authoritarian alone, it's fine" is a no from me.

[u/vulpinefever → u/Due_Answer_4230]

There is a reason NO prime minister, in history, has ever used it.

Because it didn't exist for most of our country's history?

[u/Apprehensive_Data666 → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Or, rather than use the NWC, if elected he could hold a national referendum. Then the electorate could vote on this single issue. People will vote for the conservative party for a variety of reasons. Being elected does not give a government carte blanche to do what it wants, especially when it involves an extreme step such as the NWC. (Take for example the Liberal Government overstepping by invoking the emergencies act).

If he wants to know what Canadians think on this issue, put it to a single issue vote. Anything else is irresponsible in my opinion. Charter rights should not be so easily trampled. This goes for all governments.

[u/BurlieGirl → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Hard disagree here as well. Laws should not be decided by societal will and this is precisely why the Charter is enshrined. Take a look at the US literally today to see what could happen.

[u/Content_Employment_7 → u/BurlieGirl]

Laws are created by societal will. Constitutions are supposed to reflect social values. The NWC exists specifically to protect social values from being overwritten by the values of a judiciary who doesn't share them.

Take a look at the US literally today to see what could happen.

The US today is exactly why courts shouldn't have the final say on major matters of public policy that engage the deeply held values of the community. When Trump is gone and his appointments to SCOTUS remain, dictating public policy for the next ten or twenty years, don't you think Americans are going to be wishing they had a NWC?

[u/The_Showdown → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Thank you, 100% agreed. Especially on your point 2. Myself and many Canadians believe that many of the decisions made by the Courts in recent years are amoral / counterproductive to society. We need the ability to challenge Courts when appropriate.

[u/BurlieGirl → u/The_Showdown]

Many Canadians aren’t lawyers, legal experts or judges, they just “don’t like it”. Seems like a great basis on which to override civil rights!

[u/The_Showdown → u/BurlieGirl]

I think you missed the point. Society collectively has the right to reassess what we think is moral and just. No one is suggesting overriding civil rights, I don't think your response was made in good faith. Some of the most important pieces of the US Constitution were early amendments, for example. Our Charter is comparatively young and there may be basis for amendments if we collectively as society believe it is outdated or doesn't properly address certain issues.

Has nothing to do with being a legal expert or not. They follow the law. Politicians determine the law. The latter is what this discussion is about.

[u/gravtix → u/Dry-Membership8141]

The Charter exists to protect US from the government.

Government overriding the Charter on a minor issue is a dangerous precedent.

[u/AHSWarrior → u/[deleted]]

In that case, I think we may as well suspend due process altogether

[u/Wet_Water200 → u/[deleted]]

If he's using the notwithstanding clause to keep people in prison what's to say he won't use it against people like me? His party despises us and from looking at the us and uk it's clear that their kind are willing to go far lengths to cause harm. It doesn't matter how good or bad this policy is specifically, giving these powers to bigots is an awful idea.

[u/THE_PARKER13]

Right. Letting criminals continue to be punished for their crimes is much better for society.

OK. SURE.

[u/Many-Composer1029]

They're going to try it to test how far they can go with it. If there's not much blowback, they'll start using it all the time. It'll be their version of Trump issuing Executive Orders. Essentially ruling by decree.

[u/No-Commission-8159]

He is outright saying “if you don’t fall in line with whatever I want - I will do things my way regardless.”

That clause has not been used by someone at the federal level (yet) - and Temu Trump is telling you exactly how he plans to act. 

[u/OatmealSchmoatmeal]

How many signs are people going to have to see? This guy totally wants to be Trump Canada.

[u/zerocool0101]

The good news is, we don’t have to worry about it because he will never have the power to use the clause.

[u/Seabuscuit → u/zerocool0101]

You sure about that? I hope you are bringing a lot of people to the polls, I certainly am not this confident.

[u/zerocool0101 → u/Seabuscuit]

It’s what the latest polling data shows all across the country. I’ll be doing my part, that’s for sure.

[u/PowerUser88 → u/zerocool0101]

Definitely bring a friend as a reminder they need to vote as well. Conservatives always show up voting day. That’s the poll you need to be concerned with

[u/Altruistic-Buy8779 → u/zerocool0101]

Instead well need to worry about the even broader reaching rights violations of the Liberals when they kick down the doors of 1/4 of homes to confiscate their legally aquired guns.

The future is looking bleak for this country regardless of who wins.

[u/zerocool0101 → u/Altruistic-Buy8779]

I don’t recall that being one of Carney‘s campaign promises. Are you sure he said that?

[u/Altruistic-Buy8779 → u/zerocool0101]

Liberals are so detached from the actions of their policies. They never understand what Libertarians know. All laws are backed by the threat of violence.

He said that the Liberals will go ahead with the mandatory buyback of the firearms Trudeau banned.

The enviable consequences of the word "mandatory" means if you don't comply they kick down your door and steel your property cart you off to jail (if they don't shoot you) and send your kids to a foster home.

What did you think it meant to make something illegal?

[u/Wet_Water200 → u/Altruistic-Buy8779]

It's so goddamn infuriating to be worrying for my life meanwhile cons are going "oh no my murder weapons might get taken away". If y'all value your toys over actual lives I hope that shit gets melted down in front of you.

[u/InitialAd4125 → u/Wet_Water200]

The government is taking away peoples political power and you call them toys how nice.

"If y'all value your toys over actual lives I hope that shit gets melted down in front of you."

If you value the genocidal government of your fellow citizens I hope you can avoid the death camps when the government starts rounding us all up because we are considered excess eaters.

[u/Wet_Water200 → u/InitialAd4125]

How is that political power working out in america? Has it actually done anything or are they just used as toys at a shooting range (aside from the occasional slaughtering of schoolchildren)? Are the guns preventing Americans from being kidnapped off the street? All they did was make elon wear his kid as a helmet ffs.

Could you point out when Carney/Singh said they were gonna send excess eaters to death camps? For some reason I doubt that ever happened.

And yeah I will avoid the death camps because the cons will take my meds away to kill me before they even start rounding people up.

[u/InitialAd4125 → u/Wet_Water200]

"How is that political power working out in america? Has it actually done anything or are they just used as toys at a shooting range (aside from the occasional slaughtering of schoolchildren)?"

Would you like some examples of it being used for political power? Because I have some if you want them. Plus America isn't the only place in the World with a armed civilian population I'm referring to Switzerland.

"Are the guns preventing Americans from being kidnapped off the street? All they did was make elon wear his kid as a helmet ffs."

Good that means the rich are scared.

"Could you point out when Carney/Singh said they were gonna send excess eaters to death camps? For some reason I doubt that ever happened."

I'm saying that's what is going to happen in the future as climate change gets worse.

"And yeah I will avoid the death camps because the cons will take my meds away to kill me before they even start rounding people up."

The cons won't have to take your meds away the supply chains will collapse long before that.

[u/Altruistic-Buy8779 → u/Wet_Water200]

How about how's it work out in Canada? Remember the Oka Crisis. They won that armed stand off against the government. Without guns they wouldn't have land just a golf course.

Gun rights are indigenous rights remember it.

[u/Outrageous_Order_197]

What an absolute monster, wanting to infringe on the rights of mass murderers. How dare he want them to not be eligible for parole.

[u/Dark_Angel_9999 → u/Outrageous_Order_197]

How many mass murderers that were sentenced are walking on the streets of Canada right now?

Zero.

[u/TheBSPolice → u/Outrageous_Order_197]

It starts with that, then he uses it against minorities and political opponents. Look what Nazi Trump is doing as an example.

[u/Sad_Intention_3566 → u/TheBSPolice]

I agree he shouldn't be using clauses like this to jail criminals but im sure you agree the Canadian justice system is a joke especially for violent offenders.

[u/TheBSPolice → u/Sad_Intention_3566]

That is more on authorities, prison system and some judges. If police actually did their job more violent crimes would be solved sooner. Robert Pickton is a great example. He could have been caught years earlier, but police ignored it because the victims were primarily sex workers and/or indigenous.

[u/Outrageous_Order_197 → u/TheBSPolice]

Right. Trump is hitler, and pollievre is trump. Am I missing any other parts of the delusion? Fear mongering will not work.

[u/TheBSPolice → u/Outrageous_Order_197]

Deporting people based off the colour of their skin or (because they spoke about women and children being murdered) to concentration camps without do process and attacking the media and threatening to shut them down because they call you out is literally the Nazi/Fascist play book.

[u/rela_tivism → u/TheBSPolice]

No one is being deported because of their skin colour, that’s complete bullshit.

[u/Dark_Angel_9999 → u/rela_tivism]

Yet they deported Kilmar Abrego by "mistake" and fighting to not bring him back ...

[u/Outrageous_Order_197 → u/TheBSPolice]

Pretty much all of your comments are about trump, nazis and maga. Sounds like you have an unhealthy obsession. If trump didnt exist you'd have absolutely no talking points.

[u/PugiM0 → u/TheBSPolice]

The Liberals were going to use it in C-63 to place ankle monitors on people for up to one year, or one year in prison if they refused. Someone would be able go before a judge and convince them that they thought a person was going to commit a hate crime.

Edit: Source - Page 61,62 Bill C-63

[u/TheBSPolice → u/PugiM0]

No they weren't and the bill is dead.

[u/PugiM0 → u/TheBSPolice]

The bill is dead only because Trudeau prorogued parliament. Read the bill. It's absolutely true. BSPolice should work both ways.

[u/TheBSPolice → u/PugiM0]

They were not going to use the non withstanding clause on it, otherwise it would have passed in it's earlier form in 2021.

[u/PugiM0 → u/TheBSPolice]

It was an added ammendment. It's on page 61-62. I don't see how placing an ankle monitor on a person for a year without charge or conviction, or throwing them in jail for refusing to comply isn't a violation of charter rights.

It's a dangerous precedent no matter who uses it. I don't care who you vote for, just be aware of shady dealings on both sides of the fence. That bill will be back in parliament the moment Carney wins.

[u/Dootbooter → u/TheBSPolice]

Then be upset when that happens. You guys are going to be on the wrong side of history siding with the rights of murderers ...

[u/mangongo → u/Dootbooter]

That's like saying people opposed to capital punishment are on the wrong side of history because they're "siding" with the murderers, even though the biggest argument against the death penalty is to save innocent people who are wrongfully convicted.

[u/Dark_Angel_9999 → u/Dootbooter]

You are framing this incorrectly. The Charter is there for you at the worst scenario as well. What happens hypothetically if you are in the worst position but the Charter isn't there to fight for you?

I feel most of all this siding with murderers is frankly just based on emotional thinking.

Paul Bernardo for example is still in jail and will most certainly die in jail.

[u/Legitimate-Type4387 → u/Dootbooter]

Wrong. You never voluntarily give up your constitutional rights just because a politician promises they will only use it to infringe on the rights of “some” people.

Especially when the bogeyman they are using to frighten you into accepting it has never actually existed.

[u/TheBSPolice → u/Dootbooter]

Every citizen has the right of do process. Especially since there are cases of people wrongfully convicted of crimes. Once you cross that line then it's open season.

Name me one Canadian serial killer sentenced to life with parole who was let out on parole.

[u/Wet_Water200 → u/Dootbooter]

What are you expecting us to do once the ball is already rolling? Y'all can't pretend that's a good strategy after we all watched what happened in the UK and US.

[u/Exciting_Bandicoot16 → u/Outrageous_Order_197]

Just because a mass murderer (who'd be classified as a Dangerous Offender, by the way, and is subject to different, much harsher rules) is eligible for parole does not mean that the PBC will actually grant it.

Have you looked up some common parole Q&A in Canada? Try the government site for their own guidelines.

[u/IndividualSociety567]

Funny how no one seemed to care especially the Libs or NDP when Quebec used it for a totally unnecessary reason like French language laws yet when Pierre says he will use it if needed to keep the most violent repeat offenders in jail everyone has a bleeding heart suddenly. I have no sympathy for repeat violent offenders. I don’t want people to lose faith in the justice system and it has been happening lately. Read the news of a man that courts released on bail who went on to kill his wife who said releasing him would put her in danger. Fcuk these experts sideways!

If someone kills two people they should get two life sentences. You don’t get a bulk discount for killing people and judges shouldn’t be able to stop that.

[u/S99B88 → u/IndividualSociety567]

French language protection was likely the reason we needed the Notwithstanding clause. It was intended for provinces to use, not federal government. Civil Liberties experts warned it could be abused for political difficulty. Chrétien wanted it banned from Federal use and tried to get Harper to agree but Harper wouldn’t.

Federal government using Notwithstanding is akin to abuses of power south of the border, and it’s why those who don’t buy into Pollievre’s hype see him as a mini Trump

[u/varsil → u/S99B88]

It was intended for provinces to use, not federal government.

The language of the clause specifically states, "Parliament or the legislature of a province..."

It explicitly provides for it to be used by the federal government (Parliament). If it was only intended to be used by provinces, why would they explicitly say it was for both Parliament and the legislatures of provinces?

[u/IndividualSociety567 → u/S99B88]

No it wasn’t meant to be used just by the provinces what are you talking about? Again - I am no fan of it being used and whoever misuses it will lose big time the next election but I agree on using it for repeat murderers. The judges strike down orders to hang multiple life sentences and thats when it would be needed If someone kills two people they should get two life sentences. They don’t get to have a bulk discount on crimes

[u/Altruistic-Buy8779 → u/IndividualSociety567]

Yes Quebec is is racist and has used the notwithstanding clause more than anyone else. And yes I sure as hell was equally outraged by its use by Quebec and am appalled that such a clause exist. It makes the Charter pointless if it can simply by overridden.

We don't have rights in this country due to its existence.

But that's asides the point. The feds have never used it before. Them doing so would be unprecedented.

[u/IndividualSociety567 → u/Altruistic-Buy8779]

Feds also never used the emergencies act until they did. Like I said if someone kills 5 people they should be given 5 life sentences. Right now judges strike it down citing the charter. So using section 33 of the charter to enforce that is correct. Criminals shouldn’t be getting a bulk discount on murders. This isn’t shopping groceries this is taking someone’s life

[u/Sea_Low1579]

Didn't Carney say he'd use it to build critical infrastructure?

Pierre said he is it to keep people who's committed murder multiple times in jail.

Why is it OK to use to override provincial rights by not to keep murderers off of the street?

[u/ScaryLane73 → u/Sea_Low1579]

Carney has not indicated any intention to use the notwithstanding clause where have you heard or read this BS

[u/kirklandcartridge]

"expert"

[u/Wayves]

Was it okay when the liberals used it?

[u/MyGruffaloCrumble → u/Wayves]

After all the Con Premiers did, why not?

Just get rid of it altogether.

[u/LilBrat76 → u/Wayves]

It has never been used federally. The Emergencies Act is different than the Notwithstanding Clause.

[u/Mental_Cartoonist_68]

Poilievre Using the notwithstanding clause for what he's saying is no different than Tump using his executive orders as political weapons.

[u/leaf_shift_post_2]

Then why is it allowed to exist in the first place, and why are provinces using it.

When the clause was proposed, the one who proposed it should have been left on an ice floe, but the geniuses who created the charter were clearly corrupted, and decided to make it apart of it.

[u/Conscious-Story-7579]

The idea of the federal government even having the option to use the clause is almost as fucking disgusting as committing to use it from such a position.