Posts Tagged ‘consent’


Here is U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder announcing a plan on September 14, 2011, to have U.S. law enforcement officials operate in Canada, and Canadian law enforcement officials to operate in the U.S. by next year.

Watch how he justifies it in the name of so-called “21st-century threats,” and claims to be protecting your liberties (commentary added).

This is an exciting step forward [for whom?] – and precisely the type of bold, collaborative approach that’s necessary to address 21st-century threats [like the average citizenry upset with your policies?]. In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative [yes, an initiative, and not a treaty, since you couldn’t get the required two-thirds support in the U.S. senate], such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing [without your consent] abilities – while still vigorously protecting [infringing upon] civil liberties and privacy rights [for the elites only] under the laws [statutes purporting to be lawful] of both the United States and Canada.

Note, however, he said civil liberties, and not liberties. He’s referring to government granted privileges, and not unalienable rights. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically requires a warrant for searching persons, places and effects, but not so with the Canadian Constitution. Which Constitution will American and Canadian officials abide by when they are operating across their border?

Since 9/11, warrantless wiretapping became the norm, so they’ve already stopped adhering to it when they deem it necessary for “security.”

This plan is against both the U.S. Constitution and Canadian law, since U.S. government officials are prohibited from holding any office from a foreign power, without the consent of Congress, and Canadian government officials are required to swear an oath to the Queen in order to faithfully execute her laws.

For more information on North American unionization, see my article, De-facto North American Unionization: How the U.S. no-fly list became the Canadian no-fly list.

Read Full Post »

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments t...

I once heard a liberty-oriented radio host say that just compensation (for the taking of private property for public use) used to require the consent of the property owner.

While that may be, it wasn’t a requirement in the minds of those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The proof of this is the explicit requirement of the consent of a real property owner in the Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The requirement of just compensation for the taking of private property for public use as specified in the Fifth Amendment is as follows:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If they had intended just compensation to mean consent, they would’ve said so, just as consent of the property owner is explicitly mentioned in the Third Amendment.

The taking of private property for private use, however, I’d argue, does require the consent of the property owner, according to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and common law.

Read Full Post »

In a little town in Quebec, Canada, a gold mining company is just one property away from developing Canada’s largest open-pit gold mine.

From the July 22, 2010 episode of CBC’s The Current:

Ken Massé is literally sitting on a gold mine. And he refuses to budge. Massé is the last thing in the way of Osisko Mining Corporation’s plan to develop Canada’s largest open-pit gold mine in tiny Malarctic, Quebec. All of Massé’s neighbours have sold out to the mining company, or have been relocated. But Massé won’t give up his childhood home without a fight.

What strikes me most about this case is the possibility of the taking of private property for private use, without the owner’s consent.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Canada’s constitution doesn’t require just compensation for the taking of private property for public use. Even worse, it doesn’t require any compensation, which even the communist Chinese Constitution requires.

Here, we’re talking about the taking of private property for private use, without the owner’s consent — something that the U.S. Constitution implicitly prohibits, but which, unfortunately, has been permitted with cases like Kelo v. New London.

The CEO of Osisko disclosed that they had sought an expropriation order of the property, which is understandable from the perspective of a publicly-traded corporation whose primary responsibility, both in law and dominant business culture, is to maximize shareholder’s wealth (as the Board and executives best see fit).

However, from the perspective of higher principle, as I believe is embodied in the U.S. constitutional requirement for just compensation, Canada’s lack of such a provision, both in law and practice, I believe, will lead to its long-term decline in the economic prosperity it currently enjoys.

Read Full Post »