Don’t you know anything WHATSOEVER about the BASIC functioning of the Constitution, you great TWIT? That definition directly contravenes the Charter of Rights according to ten different precedents. Haven’t you been paying any attention at all? This wasn’t exactly small news! If you want such a motion to have any effect, it would require the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, or else it doesn’t have any content whatever! And I don’t recall seeing anything about the Notwithstanding Clause in that flatulent little motion of yours, so of course it wasn’t votable, duh!
Doesn’t the CCRAP Reform Alliance Party of Conservatoria have any person on staff who is aware of these kinds of things? You’d think that a group who’s supposed to be engaged in making the law would have someone on staff with at least the grasp of the constitution of a news-following 23-year-old linguistics major, but nooooo.
We’re just going to kick and scream and sputter because that mean all-party committee ruled our very important bill out of order just 'cause it violated that stupid old Charter according to those ten different dumb old provincial superior courts. It’s all a giant conspiracy against us right-thinking people!
(Furthermore, the CCRAP Reform Alliance Party of Conservatoria hasn’t even had their first policy convention yet; you’d think that, even though this guy doesn’t give a gobbet of opossum spunk about the Charter, he’d at least respect his own party’s policy process. Well, except that, considering how much they love to beat up gay people, expecting any respect for the Charter on this matter out of them is kind of a foregone conclusion.)
According to your cite, the bill is identical to the 1999 vote on the same subject. Since it would not actually create any legislation, it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. The Bill doesn’t really DO anything.
WHY he would want the 1999 vote repeated, I can’t really understand, but there’s no reason to think it would be “unconstitutional.” A vote that essentially amounts to just a public statement doesn’t really mean anything.
Right. Either it’s unconstitutional, or it doesn’t do anything. Either way, there’s no reason for it to go to a vote. (It’ll still get debated, just not voted on.)
Either way, he looks really dopey for whining about it, especially considering there’s going to be an actual bill on the subject during this legislative session. He’s just upset because he knows he’s on the wrong side of the Charter and, in all likelihood, the Supreme Court.
Not to mention the fact that it’s pretty pointless and milquetoast to try to pass a bill that says, in essence, “BIRT this House is against the Charter,” whether this would have the force of law or not, without being willing to put your Notwithstanding Clause where your mouth is.