Suchergebnisse

-

Kelly reviews That They May All Be One: The Call To Unity Today by Walter Kasper.

Examines the relationship between judicial activism & liberal constitutionalism in regard to state actors, & argues that judicial activism does not necessarily lead to the decline of democratic politics in Canada. The contention that different state actors produce different effects on liberal constitutionalism is illuminated by judicial review of legal rights by the Supreme Court of Canada between 1982 & 1999, particularly concerning the impact of judicial activism on the conduct of the police & legal rights cases involving challenges to statutes & regulations. It is concluded that the impact of judicial activism varies & is dependent on the state actor in question & the particular policy area. 4 Tables. L. Collins Leigh

This article considers the relationship between rights and federalism in the Supreme Court of Canada's review of cases invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It considers whether the Supreme Court of Canada has compromised provincial autonomy by establishing Canada-wide standards in provincial areas of jurisdiction. It suggests that the centralization thesis associated with judicial review on Charter grounds is inconclusive, and combining several processes under the rubric of centralization, it misrepresents the Charter's effect on Canadian federalism and provincial autonomy. Further, the centralization thesis has lost much momentum during the course of Charter review, and, as a result, is a limited approach to understanding the relationship between rights and federalism in Canada. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has demonstrated sensitivity to federalism in its Charter jurisprudence, most evident in a complex jurisprudence that has served to offset the centralization thesis and its implications for provincial autonomy. This threepart federalism jurisprudence is federalism as gatekeeper, an explicit federalism jurisprudence and an implicit federalism jurisprudence, which is most evident in the relationship between criminal rights and provincial responsibility for the administration of justice. This article demonstrates that the Court's approach to Charter review has seen a reconciliation between rights and federalism, most evident in the declining importance of the centralization thesis and the growing importance of the three-part federalism jurisprudence during Charter review. This sensitivity to federalism has existed since the beginning of the Court's Charter jurisprudence but has largely been overshadowed by the dominance of the centralization thesis in the Charter debate.