*

+
Cannabis Culture Forums > The Political Forum > Pot Politics
Topic > Flaws in the Preamble  /  30Nov06
.
 The biggest problem with the Preamble to the 'Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms' is twofold: (A) Despite the almost-plain declaration to the
contrary, the Rule of Law is NOT supreme. It is not supreme chiefly because
it is limited and imperfect; just as the entire body of written laws is
limited and imperfect. And although the rule of law guides and encompasses
all the written laws, it must of necessity include (or draft) such entities
as are beyond the scope of the Law as such. The first choice for any such
secondary and external assistance is (obviously) the supremacy of God.
.
 (B) But this is a problem as well, for 'God' is not, and cannot be, defined
by the Law. The 'supremacy of God' then is the supremacy of something
nebulous and ultimately unknown. And although God is normally understood
to be a person who is indeed unlimited and perfect, this "fact" is of
surprisingly little practical use to the judges (ie. in the day to day
setting of the functioning courts); chiefly because it is ill-understood
and ill-defined.
.
 The only possible conclusion that we can reach from all this is that the
Preamble is inadequate to bear the weight that is placed upon it. Let me
be even more blunt: the Preamble (and thus the Constitution as a whole)
is seriously flawed; and thus in very dire need of improvement by way of
legislative revision. Therefore the
.
 'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the
supremacy of God and the rule of law'
.
should be changed into something better defined, more practical,
and eminently realistic; such as (for example):
.
'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy
of Justice, Liberty, Truth, and Reason (as values and powers stemming
ultimately from the absolute and eternal God), as well as the primacy of
the Rule of Law over the Government (so as to preserve government by
law, rather than government by men)'
.
 Here everything is defined so as to be crystal clear in the minds of all
who read it. Nothing is left to chance, or to the wisdom of the judges.
This simple change in just one statement within the Constitution would
immediately clear up any confusion about which 'supremacy' is more
supreme than the other 'supremacy'. And it would also have a profound
effect not only upon the Law itself, but also upon the way that the Law
is understood, practiced, *and* applied.
.
 4X: The rule of law, being the body of laws as applied to government,
is intended to limit and control the power of the government; so as to
prevent the abuse of power to the detriment of the people, and the nation
as a whole. And while this is surely a noble and admirable intention and
purpose, we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that this worthy
goal is always achieved. The simple fact is that the rule of law is just
inadequate to the task.
.
Why? Because the government contains the people who shape and control
the written laws (which are the physical expression of the will and power
of Parliament). In other words, under the current Preamble, the power of
the legislative branch of the government to "tinker" with the laws (to its
own benefit) is practically unrestricted. If the Law does not provide some-
thing that the government earnestly desires, then it can remedy this over-
sight simply by drafting new legal provisions that allow the government
to do what it wants by accessing whatever powers and privileges are
needed to accomplish the thing-in-view.
.
 However, since the new and revised Preamble implicitly recognizes that
the rule of law is *not* supreme, it can allow for the supremacy of Justice,
Liberty, Truth, and Reason to limit, and if need be, to check any abuse of
power made possible through the misuse of the legislative function of
Parliament. Thus if the government ever feels the need to harm a certain
oppressed and unpopular group of people (or any portion thereof) the
judges have the power to just say no, and thus legally veto the attempted
misuse. However, be warned, this will *only* work if all the judges are
truly and fully committed to the supremacy of Justice and Liberty and
Truth and Reason.
.
               - the almost reasonable one - textman ;>>
x

+
Cannabis Culture Forums > The Political Forum > Pot Politics
Thread >  Who are our arch-enemies?  /  29Nov06  /  Topic >

  Who, then, is primarily responsible for this war on drugs and the disaster
that has followed along after it for so long and so far? First and foremost,
it is the Law itself. Now the law is necessarily imperfect, and so some-
times it gets infected with some bad laws that actively harm many people
directly, and many more indirectly. Secondly, it is the officers and officials
of the Government (chiefly through its legislative functions); for they
are the ones who shape and control the written laws which are the physical
manifestation of (the spirit of) the Law, as well as an active expression
of the spirit and intentions of the lawmakers themselves.
.
 Thirdly, it is the Police and Armed Forces of this country for following the
letter of the law with a zeal that is *most* unbecoming within a group of
officers and servants who are basically good people. I have seen the
faces of the police, and the faces of the forces. Most of them are men
and women who genuinely believe in doing the best that they can for the
welfare of society. Nobody can fault them for making mistakes from time
to time. It is just unfortunate that a few bad officers go beyond the letter
of the law in their over-zealous pursuit of pot-prohibition so as to
deliberately deceive the public by lying through the media, and by actively
participating in the propaganda aspect of this pointless and sadistic
campaign of many-sided warfare against marijuana (ie. the war of lies).
.
 By doing so, these evil servants of the state do much harm to society as
a whole, and by doing such, spread social discontent and disrespect for the
law, and also bring dishonor down upon all the police and armed forces of
this country. However, and more to the point, every single one of them
bears *some measure* of responsibility for their role in the holocaust, no
matter how small their participation in this war on drugs is; for all of them
are not only bound to serve the dictates of the Law, but as citizens before
officers they are also bound to examine their consciences, to ask after the
reasons they use to justify ALL of their actions, and to always do as Justice
and Liberty command (even if this is contrary to the letter of the law).
.
 Let me be perfectly clear about this: EVERYONE, from the Queen and the
Prime Minister on down to the lowest citizen, has the duty and obligation to
refrain (at all times) from unnecessarily harming (in *any* conceivable way)
any other member of our common and shared society. We do this in order
to preserve the peace and welfare of the people as a whole. And this duty
is logically and morally *prior* to any duty or obligation demanded from the
Law, and by the laws, and is even more supreme than the written laws: but
only in those rare and extreme cases where obeying the letter of the laws
actually causes *more harm* than NOT obeying them  (ie. the bad laws)!
(Why? Because the spirit of the law (ie. Justice, Liberty, & Reason)
supercedes, informs, and empowers the letter of the laws.)
.
 And this is very much the case as regards the war on drugs. Now the law
itself cannot feel guilt and sorrow for causing needless harm to the people.
But those police and armed forces personnel who (even unknowingly) cause
harm in and through their thoughtless service (according to law) most
certainly *should* feel guilt and shame and sorrow for the blood on their
hands (no matter how invisible said blood be).
.
                   - one who refrains from doing harm - texxtman ;>
x

textman
*