Subscribe

To receive our free monthly newsletter,
Please enter your email address

Role of Government The Courts

Powers of Courts vs. legislature

The elected representatives in government form what is called the legislative branch, so named because theirs is the sole privilege and responsibility to pass laws, in other words, to legislate. The power to legislate is granted by the Constitution, solely to these elected representatives.

Our government system has another branch, called the judiciary. This is our various court systems which are presided over by judges. In Canada, judges are appointed by the leader of the ruling party and hold the job for life. This is different to the USA where judges are elected by the people. Some favour the American system on the supposition that it makes judges more accountable to the people.

Constitutionally-defined role of the courts

The role of the judiciary is to uphold the Rule of Law. This means their job is to ensure that the law, as already defined by the legislature, is applied equally to all persons. This ensures that nobody is above the law. As an example, when a corrupt politician is brought to trial, the judge helps ensure that the politician does not get away with cheating on his taxes. The power of his office should not allow the corrupt politician to be above the law.

In complex matters, the judiciary also helps interpret the application of the law, in accordance with the constitution.

The judiciary is never supposed to "legislate from the bench". i.e. create laws. The constitution does not grant judges the power to make or abolish laws. That can come only from elected members of the legislature.

Judicial Activism

In Canada, our judiciary is suffering from the recent phenomenon called "judicial activism". This is where individual judges just stand up, and declare laws from the bench. In so doing, they usurp the rightful authority of the legislature.

Canada's court system is based upon the rules of jurisprudence. This means "precedents" are set by previous court decisions and case history, which obligates future courts to obey earlier rulings. This legal principle is called 'stare decisis', Latin for '"maintain what has been decided'. Judges therefore have a legal, moral and constitutional duty to obey the rules of jurisprudence, which have been established over hundreds of years in the British legal system inherited by Canada.

When individual judges throw out hundreds of years of jurisprudence and case law, they should be overruled by parliament, reprimanded and removed from the bench if possible.

When judges are free to decide cases based on their own personal likes and dislikes, biases and prejudices, the saying "all hell will break loose" becomes a fitting description. Thanks to judicial activism in Canada:

- babies can be killed in their mother's womb up to the moment of birth;
- men can 'marry' men (note: a 2003 lower court ignored case law and a previous Supreme Court precedent that upheld the definition of marriage)
- adoption agencies give babies over to lesbian and gay couples, thus depriving the child of either a father or mother;
- group sex can now be legally performed in clubs (2005 swinger ruling)

One would have to be in serious denial to believe that judicial activism is not destroying the moral fabric of our society, along with our democratic process.

How do they get away with judicial activism?

Two words: liberal media (note: the word "liberal" does not imply any party, but rather, the secular, post-Christian world view). Our liberal mainstream news media holds tremendous power in shaping our political and legal culture. The media constantly bombards Canadians with biased presentation of facts, and buries those facts with which they disagree.

First, because of media bias, even politicians who disagree with the social engineering foisted upon Canada, dare not speak out for fear of being labeled by the media as a "religious bigot" or "extreme". Therefore, most politicians lack the will to stand against judicial activism for fear of "media thuggery" and humiliation.

Second, the biased reporting of events and the lack of journalistic depth of coverage on the issues, keeps the average Canadian in blissful ignorance about the dangers. Thus, media also prevents the people from rising up in large numbers.