[Spud]

The guy is a dork,ignorant,or both.<br /> Maybe a spy? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[Dr Caleb]

Too much TV. There are no 'Amendments' to our constitution.<br /> <br />

[lesouris]

Obviously this guy has no idea what he's talking about, considering the 7th Amendment to the US Constitution is:<br /> <br /> [QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> In fact, in the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X of the US Constitution), there is no Amendment that comes even close to what this man is saying. Of the other Amendments (XI-XXVII), none deal with anything remotely related to what this man is talking about.<br /> <br /> He may have been talking about Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"). <br /> <br /> Maybe he just doesn't know what he's talking about, and is just trying to sound important or smart.

[whelan costen]

Thanks, I was just making sure I was still living in Canada, or that our Charter hadn't been changed to sound like an American version!

[The Red Dwarf]

hehehe wow, sad I wonder if he wonders where his 2nd ammedment is.

[Monorprise]

To be honest I don’t know what you guys are talking about here, there are no "rights" in Canada, as the Constitution that “guarantees them” is a joke, because the government can bypass it anytime they want via the notwithstanding clause.<br /> The US government at least cannot overrule its Constitution! Further more Americans are citizens of the United States of American, and of their respective states not subjects.<br /> I think all of you got it wrong here, you seem to think Canada is legal some kind of United States of America, and I’m sorry but technical that’s just not the case.<br />

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Monorprise]</b> … the government can bypass [a right] anytime they want via the notwithstanding clause.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> There’s a five year time limit on such bypasses. If the bypass were extremely unpopular, the party who invoked it would be voted out of government — which perhaps forms the check/balance against pervasive use of the clause.<br /> <br /> Did you know that at least one prominent conservative American jurist would like to see an analogue to the notwithstanding clause in the States? In Robert Bork’s view (see <i><a href="http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.327,filter.all/book_detail.asp">Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges</a></i>), it would provide an escape hatch against judicial activism.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Monorprise]</b> The US government at least cannot overrule its Constitution!<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> No, but it can (and does) ignore it — for example, how long has it been since Article I., Section 10.’s “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” was last honoured?

[Brent Swain]

I believe it is covered by the right to persue a livlihood on the part of the hooker. Feeding oneself takes priority ,as it should.<br /> In Mexico the red light districts are ten miles out in the desert, far from any residences. Only legalisation can reduce the problems and increase the safety of those forced by circumstance beyond their control, to obtain a livelihood by such dangerous means.<br /> Brent

[Brent Swain]

I believe that to amend the Canadian consitution takes the aggreement of at least seven provinces containing at least 50% of the population, an appropriatly high threshold.<br /> Brent