Sentences with phrase «constitutional framers»

First, she takes Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486 to stand for the proposition that the judiciary is not bound by the intent of constitutional framers.

Washington's constitutional framers went even further than Congress required.

He insists that the constitutional framers did not envision complete independence of religion and the state, or absolute separation of church and state, and therefore nondiscriminatory or indirect aid to religion and religious institutions was not enjoined by the First Amendment.

I would love to hear what our key Constitutional framers would say to that.

Not exact matches

Scalia, who died last February, was a leading proponent of originalism, an approach that seeks to resolve constitutional disputes by focusing on the document's text, its historical context and the framers» intentions.

When the constitutional mandate is sufficiently clear from the text, the understanding of the framers, or the structure of constitutional government, it removes certain matters from popular control and majoritarian rule.

The breadth of many constitutional phrases implies a potential for growth beyond the precise principles that the framers had in mind.

Whatever the Framers had in mind, it was not a method of constitutional interpretation grounded in moral skepticism.

It seems for every constitutional question at least one side uses a framers» intent argument, with a few more more words in the constitution each of those arguments would be silly or unnecessary.

In Kazakewich v. Kazakewich, [1936] A.J. No. 10 (C.A.), the Alberta Court of Appeal summed up the ratios in Lambe, Severn and Edwards in this way at paragraph 86: I take it then that in approaching the interpretation of the pertinent sections of The B.N.A. Act with respect to the administration of justice, a Court should keep in mind that these sections are embodied in an Imperial statute to which the ordinary rules for the interpretation of statutes apply, that therefore the intention of the framers of this Imperial statute must be ascertained as at the date of the enactment by having regard to the words employed without extraneous aids to interpretation where the language is unambiguous, and that having regard however to the nature of the statute, a great constitutional charter, the widest and most liberal construction of the words used should be adopted with a view to giving effect to the whole scheme of Canadian union [Emphasis Added].

I believe the Framers specifically provided that juries have no constitutional role to play in sentencing.

That is, it called on the court to conclude that because some Fathers and framers were against many tariffs much of the time, they were hostile enough to regulation that might burden interprovincial trade to implant in constitutional text a sweeping restriction on governments» legislative power that somehow didn't come up in the Confederation debates or in any other pieces of Confederation - era evidence.

In other words, the Fathers and framers intended to make trade liberalization a sweeping constitutional force that would limit the legislative powers of Ottawa and the provinces that are set out in sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act.

From a scholarly perspective, I found that it's a proud part of our constitutional tradition, that it's perfectly legal and indeed was embraced by the framers as a way to protect people from too powerful law enforcement and too powerful prosecutors.

Surely we can tell that, if the framers were consciously choosing between a narrower and a broader versions of a constitutional ban on barriers to trade, they chose the broader because the narrower did not capture all the barriers they meant to prohibit.

In some cases, courts look to the meaning of constitutional provisions at the time of their enactment; in others to the intentions of their framers; and in a few, perhaps even to the exact way in which the framers would have expected these provisions to operate.

In five days on the witness stand, Judge Bork had a chance to explain himself fully, to describe and defend his view that the Constitution's text and the intent of its 18th - century framers provided the only legitimate tools for constitutional interpretation.