Feb 25, 2013 9:22 PM

Who da fuck is Peter Hogg ?

When the Supreme Court of Canada is unclear on something, they call-in Peter Hogg to make it clear Constitutionally- wise to them..

Ohhh... sounds like a top sport then.

Good bloke.

...and more Cow-Bell. You're gonna want more Cow-Bell.

Cow bell?? Is it an ice cream or do kanuks have a strange & weird sense o humor?

http://vimeo.com/39387904

to me....this cowbell thing, after 2 weeks of thinking of it, its someone that makes a horrific noise over some beautiful sounds and People are Happy about it.......:D tell me I got it please.....serious...

in other words....people are all fuked-up...:D :D

i was at the library yesterday- and this is what Peter Hogg had to say in his Constitutional Law of Canada textbook 8th-edition, cuz someone stole the 10th, clarifying SECTION 32. of the CHARTER:

Any statute enacted by either Parliament OR a Legislature which is INCONSISTENT with the Charter, will be OUTSIDE the POWER OF (ULTRA VIRES), the enacting body and WILL BE INVALID. (footnote: 47)

footnote 47: this result would follow EVEN WITHOUT the Supremacy Clause of section 52(1), BUT, that clause REINFORCES the ULTRA VIRES conclusion.

Peter Hogg:

"In my view, it is the exercise of a POWER OF COMPULSION, that makes the Charter applicable to bodies exercising STATUTORY authority...the Charter applies to the exercise of statutory authority regardless of whether the ACTOR is PART of the Government, or is CONTROLLED by the Government. It is the EXERTION of a POWER OF COMPULSION GRANTED BY STATUTE, that causes the Charter to apply."

^America has something similar naturally. If I am not mistaken, it was the Madison v Marbury ruling.

Norah^^^ ;)

:D Ive never heard of Peter Hogg!

I had to look up COMPULSION

COMPULSION. The forcible inducement to au act. 2. Compulsion may be lawful or unlawful. 1. When a man is compelled by lawful authority to do that which be ought to do, that compulsion does not affect the validity of the act; as for example, when a court of competent jurisdiction compels a party to execute a deed, under the pain of attachment for contempt, the grantor cannot object to it on the ground of compulsion. 2. But if the court compelled a party to do an act forbidden by law, or not having jurisdiction over the parties or the subject-matter, the act done by such compulsion would be void. Bowy. Mod. C. L. 305. 3. Compulsion is never presumed. Coercion. (q.v.)