Timeline for Do courts declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13 at 22:08 | comment | added | Brian | Although it's correct that Canada used to have parliamentary supremacy prior to 1982, it's worth noting that the British parliament was the supreme one. Acts of the Canadian parliament could be struck down if they violated the constitution of Canada, which was an act of the British parliament, for example in Nadan v R. | |
| Jan 13 at 19:22 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @TannerSwett Basically saying that judges let human rights tip the scale in interpretations of other laws. | |
| Jan 13 at 16:41 | comment | added | Sophie Swett | Can you clarify your sentence "There is also a historical practice ... general decency"? I can't understand the structure of that sentence. It seems like the overall structure is "There is a practice of interpreting [a certain thing] [in a certain manner]," but I can't figure out where the boundary between the "certain thing" and "certain manner" parts of the sentence is. | |
| Jan 13 at 6:25 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 6:18 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 683 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 6:11 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 683 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 6:05 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 683 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 5:56 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 856 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 5:50 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 856 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 5:47 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @Greendrake I've riffed on your point at some length in some additional discussion in this answer. | |
| Jan 13 at 5:45 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 856 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 5:19 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 856 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 4:51 | comment | added | Greendrake | In NZ, "judicial review" refers to a very different thing, having nothing to do with what is talked about in this answer. | |
| Jan 13 at 4:41 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 857 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 4:27 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1493 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 4:21 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1493 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 4:16 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1493 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 4:01 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 3:55 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 3:48 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jan 13 at 3:43 | history | answered | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |