Even though the 2007 ethanol
legislation had good intentions, its intended beneficial aspects — on gasoline prices, CO2 emissions, and oil security — have been minimal.
Even though
some legislations have good intentions in mind, I think some are outdated.
Not exact matches
«This
legislation, albeit
well -
intentioned, infringes on that right... it is not just news organizations who
have a First Amendment right to make and display photographs or videotapes of public events; we all do.»
«This
legislation, which was
well intentioned,
would have a serious impact on our State if signed into law.
In a letter sent to Senate leaders on 24 February and released earlier this week by the Massachusetts - based Woods Hole Research Center, 65 scientists warned that «this
well -
intentioned legislation, which claims to address climate change,
would in fact promote deforestation in the U.S. and elsewhere and make climate change much worse.»
While these pieces of
legislation have been
well -
intentioned and contain some appropriate remedies, critics argue that they take an overly broad approach that negatively affects legitimate patent holders, especially small companies.
The problem as I see it for Quebec is that they wont be able to rely on the security aspect because 1) its clear from the narrow scope of the ban (i.e. provincial employees and persons interacting with government) that the
intention of the
legislation had nothing to do with security and 2) even if it squeaked through the door of s. 1 of the Charter, the court very
well could find that such
legislation would be ultra vires provincial jurisdiction (admittedly I haven't explored this argument too deeply).
Fairness
would be
better served with properly considered
legislation, which moves away from the concepts of inferred
intention, constructed
intention or even imputed
intention.