5

The Department of Justice has a nice guide on each section of the Charter, including section 28. As @MichaelSeifert's comment says, section 15 did not come into effect until later to give government time to resolve possible conflicting laws. During this time, section 28 can still be used to ensure other Charter rights are enforced on a gender equal basis. ...


2

Bill B is not an Act until it proceeds through Parliament and receives Royal Assent. Therefore it doesn't matter what its provisions say; it must follow the rules described in Act A. If it doesn't, there is no Act B. It's not a matter of constitutionality, as that has limited meaning when we're talking about Acts of Parliament. It's more that Parliament ...


2

It seems to me that the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to enact laws that, in following with the purpose of the constitution as found in the preamble, "establish Justice... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." My first question is, is this the basis for federal criminal law? No. The necessary and proper ...


1

The accepted legal doctrine is that Parliament is Sovereign That is, Parliament is the supreme authority in England and Wales (its status under Scottish law is different); if Parliament says that it passed an Act then it passed the Act. R. (Jackson) v. Attorney General is, in many ways, an odd case. First, the AG did not challenge the plaintiffs' standing to ...


1

The request is legal The advantage to the city of having the affidavit is that you are entering into a contract not to use the space as a living area. Therefore, if you do, the city has to option of prosecuting you for a criminal offence or suing for breach of contract. In the first case, the affidavit will help them meet their burden of proof beyond ...


1

The only relevant example using the US Constitutional naturally-born requirement is Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona Territory. The lack of a legal challenge to his candidacy is not definitive proof – this is a matter that the Supreme Court has not ruled on. Various others were citizens because of parental citizenship (e.g. Ted Cruz and John McCain). ...


1

It is slightly complicated No such case has occurred in US history, so no case law is fully on-point. It should be noted that in such a case it is quite likely that the parents of such a person would be quite likely to be US citizens, in which case such a person would, under current law, be a citizen of the US from birth (if a parent had resided within the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible