Derogatory

 It has begun: we're in for a solid 48 hours of snowfall...unles, of course, things get

a tad warmer and we get into freezing rain.

                                                                                      

*     *     *

Stumbled upon this lively piece on the Web, earlier today: why nautical miles came

to be called 'knots', (in French). Below:

Knots

                                                                       *     *     *

NOTWITHSTANDING

Copilot:

Canada; what is a notwithstanding clause

The notwithstanding clause is a provision in Canada’s Constitution (Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) that allows federal or provincial governments to temporarily override certain Charter rights. It gives legislatures the power to pass laws that operate “notwithstanding” parts of the Charter, even if courts would otherwise strike them down as unconstitutional.

🔎 Key Details

Location in law: Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Scope: Governments can override rights in Section 2 (fundamental freedoms) and Sections 7–15 (legal and equality rights). These include freedoms of expression, religion, and rights to liberty, security, and equality.

Duration: Any use of the clause lasts five years, after which it must be renewed if the government wants it to continue.

Purpose: It was designed as a compromise when the Charter was created, balancing judicial review with legislative supremacy. It ensures elected governments can have the final say in exceptional cases.

Use in practice: Though initially considered politically taboo, provinces like Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta have invoked it in recent years. For example, Alberta has used it to legislate on issues like teacher strikes and transgender rights.

⚖️ Why It Matters

Democratic tension: The clause highlights the balance between protecting individual rights and allowing elected governments to pursue policies even if courts disagree.

Controversy: Critics argue it undermines constitutional rights, while supporters say it preserves democratic accountability by letting legislatures override unelected judges.

Political reality: Its use has become more common in recent years, showing governments are less hesitant to invoke it.

📌 In Plain Terms

Think of the notwithstanding clause as a “constitutional escape hatch.” Normally, courts can strike down laws that violate Charter rights. But if a government invokes Section 33, it can say: “We know this law conflicts with certain rights, but we’re passing it anyway.”

Would you like me to show you recent examples of when provinces have used the clause (like Alberta’s current legislation), so you can see how it plays out in practice?

So Canada's Supreme Court is less invested in interpreting the Constitution, in contrast to the US??

Great question — this gets at one of the most fascinating differences between Canadian and American constitutional culture.

🇨🇦 Canada’s Supreme Court

Role: The Supreme Court of Canada does interpret the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but its authority is deliberately balanced by the notwithstanding clause (Section 33).

Implication: This means that even if the Court strikes down a law for violating Charter rights, a legislature can re‑enact it using Section 33. In practice, this makes the Court’s rulings less absolute than those of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial style: Canadian constitutional interpretation tends to emphasize dialogue between courts and legislatures. Courts articulate rights, governments sometimes push back, and the public debate shapes outcomes.

🇺🇸 U.S. Supreme Court

Role: The U.S. Supreme Court has the final word on constitutional interpretation. There is no equivalent to Section 33.

Implication: Once the Court rules that a law violates the Constitution, that law is invalid — unless the Constitution itself is amended (a far more difficult process).

Judicial style: U.S. constitutional law is more court‑centric, with judges often seen as guardians of rights against majoritarian politics.

⚖️ Comparative Take

In Canada, legislatures retain a constitutional override tool, so the Supreme Court’s interpretations are influential but not always decisive.

In the U.S., judicial supremacy is entrenched: the Court’s word is final unless the Constitution is formally changed.

This difference reflects deeper political cultures: Canada’s Charter was designed to balance rights protection with parliamentary sovereignty, while the U.S. Constitution enshrines judicial review as a cornerstone of checks and balances.

👉 So, Canada’s Supreme Court is not “less invested” in interpreting the Constitution — it’s just operating in a system where its rulings can be politically overridden, whereas in the U.S. the Court’s rulings are binding unless the Constitution itself changes.

Would you like me to show you specific cases where Canada’s Supreme Court rulings were overridden by legislatures using the notwithstanding clause? That would illustrate this contrast vividly.