Is it purely advisory or does it have some teeth? Have their been any cases where the constitution has affected the outcome of a court decision?
Is it purely advisory or does it have some teeth? Have their been any cases where the constitution has affected the outcome of a court decision?
That doesn’t sound so temporary. Also not sure what freedom of speech has to do with freedom to spend money. I got a bit lost there.
However it does seem to explain how it was overruled during the Ottawa protests.
Essentially, Canadians have no inherent or inalienable rights.
The notwithstanding clause has to get renewed every 5 years, that’s the temporary part.
Regarding speech and money, the idea the US Supreme Court has is that restrictions on buying advertising to support a candidate during an election is a restriction on speech. I’d agree that the link is somewhat tenuous.