Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
You're arguing semantics, personal belief and your view are essentially the same thing, you're viewing something with your own bias. If law X is enacted and found to be compliant with the charter it's constitutional and it was all along, my point is no one knows until the judiciary rules. The law will be applied practically as the government is the only body entitled to enact legislation, the court interprets it.
|
Courts aren't gods. They are essentially lawyers endowed with the ability to make their opinions binding. I am a lawyer without that ability, but this doesn't somehow make my opinion any less valid than theirs (except in so far as I would expect any judge hearing this to have a more informed and experienced view than mine). Judges have biases as well. In my opinion, it's unconstitutional.
Quote:
|
I understand that your view is that cell phones should not be seized as you feel that is a violation of your charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure. My point is that to call it "unconstitutional" is a pretty big assumption as it hasn't been deemed so yet. Agree with it or not, it's up to the courts to decide.
|
Further to the earlier point, I can validly call a law unconstitutional even AFTER the Supreme Court determines that in their view, it isn't. The courts do get things wrong, not altogether infrequently. Just a month or so ago, the Supremes overturned one of their decisions that had been standing since 1978.
I think the difference of perspective here is that you appear to be saying that laws aren't unconstitutional until the court decides that they are. I disagree. Laws either are or are not unconstitutional on their own merits, and where they are unconstitutional a court can - and hopefully does - recognize as much and strike them down.