Posts Tagged ‘law’

You don’t learn this in the publicly-funded educational system.

Read Full Post »

Canadian flagThere is the common legal refrain and myth that we’re all equal under the law.

Part 1, Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Here comes the weasel words, which say all Canadians aren’t equal under the law.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (84)

Read Full Post »

One of the misconceptions bandied about in the alternative media is that Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan claimed in 2007 that the Fed was above the law, as this popular video indicates.

Here’s what he actually said:

The Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take.

He didn’t say that the Fed is above the law — he made the true claim that no other *agency* of government can overrule it, where agency means some other body created by Congress. Congress itself can get rid of the Fed, and should, because its purpose was to serve the big financial interests and not the interests of the people, such as limited state banking and usury-free community currencies would.

Read Full Post »

Canadian health careCanada’s Supreme Court ruled on October 18, 2013 that a Toronto man who has been on life support for three years cannot be removed from it without the consent of his family, despite doctors deciding it is no longer medically necessary.

Two Sunnybrook doctors have lost their bid to unilaterally remove a severely brain damaged patient from life support, but they still have the option of going to a provincial tribunal to try to overrule his family’s wishes, the Supreme Court has decided.

What I find shameful about the doctors in question, is not that they are arguing that life support is no longer necessary, but that they argue that “they were not actually providing medical treatment by keeping the man on life support.”

Of course providing life support is medical treatment. It’s not free to make, purchase or operate those machines, and providing related support.

Their argument strikes me as a cynical attempt to end life support, perhaps under a completely valid medical basis, under false pretenses, because of the constraints of the law.

However, I also find it shocking that the Supreme Court decision would claim a right to medical treatment at the involuntary expense of others. The cynicism is furthered by that “right” subjected to being arbitrarily denied on the basis of the decision of a subsequent government panel, which perfectly illustrates the inability of governments to grant positive rights.

I am sympathetic to the concern of “death panels”, which is what the provincial government panel effectively can serve as. Also, doctors can even be pushed into that role because of pressures in the socialized health care system, and this is exactly why I support private money for primary health care in Canada, which is what all other countries in the world allow for, except for Cuba and North Korea.

For more on health care, see my articles:

1) The first step in health care reform: Recognizing that health care is not a right

2) Ron Paul right on health Care: It’s not a right and it’s not a privilege — it’s a good

3) Stefan Molyneux reveals the perverse incentives in the U.S. health care system

Read Full Post »

U.S. ConstitutionSince World War II, the American public has been regularly lied to and misled by various mass media sources that a Declaration of War under the United States Constitution is unnecessary, outmoded and/or only symbolic.

Article I, Section 8, which grants enumerated powers to Congress, grants Congress the power “[t]o declare War.”

Therefore, any references to war in the Constitution relate to this specific power.

The proof that a Declaration of War under the U.S. Constitution isn’t symbolic comes from the U.S. Constitution itself, which states in the Third Amendment that:

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.

Given that the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is still in effect, not having been amended by a subsequent amendment, it demonstrates that only a Declaration of War by Congress, specifically under Article I, Section 8, gives the Congress the authority to quarter soldiers in the houses of Americans, in a manner prescribed by law, and if there is only a so-called authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or some presidential executive action, such quartering would be unconstitutional and illegal.

This amendment clearly puts the lie to anyone perpetrating the notion that a Declaration of War is only symbolic subsequent to the last official Declaration of War in World War II, and in the subsequent years.

Read Full Post »

The New logo for the Toronto sun

On June 26, 2012, I was surprised to see the Toronto Sun advocate a bike helmet law for adults in Ontario.

Requiring adult cyclists to wear helmets makes so much sense, we’re amazed it isn’t already the law in Ontario.

The Cycling Death Review, a report by the Ontario coroner’s office, has found almost 75% of 129 bicyclists killed in Ontario from 2006 to 2010 weren’t wearing helmets.”

Responsible cyclists know better.

But since many don’t, a law is required.

All three parties in the Legislature should pass one as quickly as possible.

This is the same newspaper that decries the ever-increasing nanny state in Ontario under Premier Dalton McGuinty. See here for an example.

Justification is given based on the existing helmet law for motorcyclists, yet I don’t see an appropriate connection, since motorcycles are licensed vehicles and they travel at much faster speeds than bicycles.

The only moral justification the government has for such an imposition is that Ontario taxpayers are picking up the full tab for any emergency medical treatment, so as a result, it can attach strings to that coverage, and this is the very problem with a socialistic health care system, which the Toronto Sun has criticized in the past.

Previously, I wrote the article, The Toronto Sun’s boilerplate commentary.

Read Full Post »

The United States Supreme Court.

On the January 11, 2012 episode of Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, Pastor David Whitney of The Institute on the Constitution made a claim implying that common law doesn’t exist in the United States (starting at 22:35):

The Congress is the only body that is given the power to make law. Not the judiciary, not the executive — none of them can make law. Only Congress can make law. Anything attempted by those other two branches is not law, it’s a violation of the Constitution.

While I agree that only Congress can legislate through statutes, there is the distinction between statutory law and common law. I know that Pastor Whitney regards natural law as the highest form of law, and that anything contrary to natural law is null and void. However, there is the separate issue of whether common law, which may or may not protect natural rights, exists in the United States, and has constitutional force.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary states that common law is:

[T]he body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the United States except Louisiana.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 81:

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (it may have been argued) will extend to causes determinable in different modes, some in the course of the COMMON LAW, others in the course of the CIVIL LAW.

Here we have a recognition of common law applying to the United States, from the most prolific writer of The Federalist Papers.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Here we have evidence from the Constitution itself that common law applies in the United States.

Therefore, I have shown that common law does exist in the United States,  in terms of the intent of the Founding Fathers, and is operable according to the Constitution.

Wherever there is no Congressional statute or code stating how something should be handled, decisions by judges constitute a separate body of law in the United States.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »