<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11857647\x26blogName\x3dM.K.+BRAATEN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://mkbraaten.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://mkbraaten.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-662957104341791521', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Poignant Hypocrisy

You know, I was thinking about the technicalities of the non-confidence vote last week and according to the strict, literal interpretation of the constitution, the non-confidence vote was not technically an official non-confidence vote.

However, all the experts that commented on the matter raised the point that the spirit of the vote meant that it was a non-confidence vote, regardless of the technicalities of it. This is considered a liberal interpretation of the law: What it meant rather then what the law explicitly states.

So I thought, isn’t it funny that when it comes to reading the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Liberal judges will base its decisions (on human rights, etc) on the liberal reading of the constitution; what really it meant to say, not what it actually says.

But, when it comes to the Liberals and their grip on power, they chose to read the law (regarding the legalities of the non-confidence vote) in the strictest sense, the literal interpretation of the law.

So what does this mean? Well, apparently the new mantra of the Liberal party is to read the constitution in a literal sense. So, then, I guess that means that since the Charter does not explicitly support same sex marriage, then it is not constitutionally allowed? Hmm??

What hypocrisy.
« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

5/17/2005 11:29:00 PM

So Stronach didn't technically defect from the Conservatives, so she technically doesnt owe them that $380,000 and she technically did not backstab MacKay, who, in turn, did not technically do the same to Orchard.....    



5/18/2005 01:59:00 PM

Except even the literal reading of constitutional convention requires the government to seek a confidence motion IMMEDIATELY after a supposedly ambiguous "procedural" motion. Waiting over a week, plus picking off Stronach, doesn't count as IMMEDIATELY. The Liberals are acting outside the constitution, it seems.    



5/18/2005 06:54:00 PM

Your bring up a slaient poit MK....Liberals never make literal interpretations of the law unless it suits them.

However the fact of the matter is the 2 commons votes the liberals lost were of a serious enough matter that they, by constitutional convention, must hold a dedicated confidence vote within 2 day.....Martin made a liberal interpretation of the requisite time line required and figured a wait of 9 days is close enough to the required 2 days...well close enough by liberal interpretation standards.    



10/27/2005 05:12:00 PM

Want more clicks to your Adsense Ads on your Blog?

Then you have to check out my blog. I have found a FREE and Legitimate way that will increase your earnings.

Come Check us out. How to Boost Your AdSense Revenue    



» Post a Comment


Listed on BlogShares