Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonded
Yeah, but the idea that has been taken in Canada is that the charter is a living document that can be used to interpret novel situations in context of the spirit of the document and current conditions. It is not possible to write a document that is 100% valid into the future. It needs to be re-examined and re-contextualized.
Which on a side note, it really bugs when judges try to use original intent and put words in the mouths of the writers into situations that they could not have possibly predicted.
|
The opinions in the 1stand 2nd paragraphs seemcontradictory. The first expresses admiration for changing the constitution to fit the times by judges.
Same sex marriage is actually further down the road you discuss in you second paragraph. Judges inferred an intent to that charter that wasn't explicitly stated, but was in fact specifically rejected at the time it was written. The intent of the writers of the charter wasn't ambiguous, sexual orientation was considered and left out.