[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The courts aren't "gods" but they are the closest thing to it in the legal world. Yes your opinion is less valid because its not binding and you have no control in court of anything outside of your sphere of influence. I would be very interested to see you in court, call a law unconstitutional in front of a judge when case law and prior rulings deemed it constitutional.

I imagine it'd look much like the lawyers in Smith arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in Moldowan. They won.

Please explain to me what your interpretation of "validly call a law unconstitutional" means. I would agree with you if that means you sitting around with a few colleagues in your office and you gave your opinion, but certainly not in a professional setting in a court.

I can validly make an argument, equivalent to any other argument presented by anyone else, that the principles of a particular charter provision are contravened by a particular piece of legislation. And yes, that applies equally in a court - in addressing a charter issue the position is either that the law is contrary to the charter or not. There is no pre-judgment as to whether that position is right or wrong, and it is usually a nuanced argument.

The whole "my opinion" approach makes me laugh. The sky is purple, no it's not, well that's my opinion.

Right, no difference whatsoever between observing a physical fact and taking a position on an issue of constitutional law. Brilliant point.

Your argument seems to be that there is no such thing as a good law, only a law that hasn't been struck down yet.

I don't know where you got this, it's absolute nonsense. The notion that because I think some laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down means that I think all laws should be is bizarre.

Your opinion appears to be that the SCC can't be wrong in its interpretation of the charter - that whatever they say the charter means is what it means. That is crazy talk.