scholarly journals La valeur juridique du projet de loi reconnaissant l'égalité des deux communautés linguistiques officielles au Nouveau-Brunswick

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 455-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Bastarache
Keyword(s):  
New Brunswick ◽  
The United States ◽  
Linguistic Community ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Linguistic Communities

The principles that an Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick would incorporate in the laws would be better put in the preamble to a constitution, because of their symbolic and educational value. They comprise two possible fundamental protections : the first is protection against discrimination (or the entrenchment of formal equality) ; the second is protection against assimilation (or resultant equality). It is this second objective which stresses the need for the recognition of collective rights in New Brunswick, such as the right to distinct social, educational and cultural institutions and, by implication, the need for the most advanced form of autonomy possible for each distinct linguistic community. One may wonder whether the Act gives the courts of New Brunswick a clear enough indication of the objectives of the Legislature to allow them to put aside the restrictive concept of equality developed in the interpretation of human rights legislation in Canada ? It would seem that the preamble to the Act limits its purpose to a declaration of principle. This legislative intent is best demonstrated by the fact that no section giving a right of action to citizens is included. The Act also has some very important limitations that result from various difficulties of interpretation. These difficulties are enhanced by the fact that the Act itself is not constitutional in nature. Section 1 borrows its language from Section 2 of the Official Languages Act of Canada, this section having been interpreted in a positive but uncertain way in Air Canada v. Joyal. Given the fact that the purpose of the Act, as set out in the preamble, is to create a set of political principles for the government of New Brunswick, it is difficult to see where it could be given a wider interpretation than the Canadian Bill of Rights with regard to the term « equality ». Whatever success was obtained in the courts has depended on the fact that the rights set out were in each instance very clear. Section 2 is the most difficult to understand because it gives no indication as to the means through which the government of New Brunswick is to ensure equality between the linguistic communities. The reference to distinct institutions is extremely uncertain and could only be given some legal force if the courts were to recognize that they have the duty to determine the true meaning of the section in a discretionary manner. But here the Act does not provide for any sanction and reflects the intention of creating declaratory legislation only. Section 3 is more or less a declaration of intent. The problem raised by the adoption of Acts of a declaratory nature was raised last year in the Forest case. The difficulty is that the declaratory judgment does not generally constitute an order given to the government or the Legislature to act in a specific way. In the United States, the Courts of Equity found that they could take into consideration the common interest in deciding whether there were obstacles to a mandatory order resulting from the application of declaratory legislation. In Canada, the courts have been very timid. One might ask whether the Act is likely to bring about a better understanding between the two linguistic communities of New Brunswick. Politically, it is obvious that the Act will not provide a true framework for political change. Legally, it can be said without doubt that the Act will not create any rights or bring about an era of judicial interventionism. However, even an implicit adoption of the concept of collective rights could mark a turning point in the relationship between the two linguistic communities in New Brunswick.

scholarly journals Le régime juridique des langues dans l'administration publique au Nouveau-Brunswick

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-113
Author(s):  
Pierre Foucher ◽  
Gérard Snow
Keyword(s):  
New Brunswick ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Recent Government ◽  
Linguistic Communities

Linguistic rights in New Brunswick have progressed since the enactment of the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act of 1969. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has caused the entrenchment of some linguistic guarantees in the Constitution and has provided for judicial enforcement. Collective rights have also been given legislative sanction through the passing, in 1981, of An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, and new legislation to replace the 1969 Act has now been proposed in a recent government-sponsored study. This paper looks at the legal consequences of these enactments in relation to public administration in New Brunswick.

The Power to be Ethical: Controlling Moral Assemblages in Border Militias

2021 ◽  
pp. 089124162110218
Author(s):  
John R. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
Ethical Conflicts ◽  
Moral Landscape ◽  
The Government ◽  
Moral Certainty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ethical Response

Every year, hundreds of U.S. citizens patrol the Mexican border dressed in camouflage and armed with pistols and assault rifles. Unsanctioned by the government, these militias aim to stop the movement of narcotics into the United States. Recent interest in the anthropology of ethics has focused on how individuals cultivate themselves toward a notion of the ethical. In contrast, within the militias, ethical self-cultivation was absent. I argue the volunteers derived the power to be ethical from the control of the dominant moral assemblage and the construction of an immoral “Other” which provided them the power to define a moral landscape that limited the potential for ethical conflicts. In the article, I discuss two instances Border Watch and its volunteers dismissed disruptions to their moral certainty and confirmed to themselves that their actions were not only the “right” thing to do, but the only ethical response available.

scholarly journals The politics of bailouts: Estimating the causal effects of political connections on corporate bailouts during the 2008–2009 US financial crisis

Public Choice ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vuk Vukovic
Keyword(s):  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Political Connections ◽  
Troubled Asset Relief Program ◽  
Top Executives ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Relief Program

AbstractIn 2008, as the financial crisis unfolded in the United States, the banking industry elevated its lobbying and campaign spending activities. By the end of 2008, and during 2009, the biggest political spenders, on average, received the largest bailout packages. Is that relationship causal? In this paper, I examine the effect of political connections on the allocation of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to the US financial services industry during the 2008–2009 financial crisis. I find that TARP recipients that lobbied the government, donated to political campaigns, or whose top executives had direct connections to politics received better bailout deals. I estimate regression discontinuity design and instrumental variable models to uncover how election outcomes for politicians in close races affected the distribution of bailout funds for connected firms. The results do not imply that some banks were deliberately favored over others, just that favored banks benefited because of their proximity to the right people in power. If being politically connected matters in general, in times of crisis it matters even more.

The Limits of Self-Determination: The Case of the Katanga Secession

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 404-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Lemarchand
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Small States ◽  
The World ◽  
States Government ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Not the least paradoxical aspect of the United Nations mandate in the Congo, as described in the three-power resolution adopted by the Security Council on November 24, 1961, is that it was designed to prevent the exercise of a right which is explicitly recognized by the Charter. In effect, by “completely rejecting the claim of the Katanga as a sovereign independent Nation” and “recognizing the government of the Republic of the Congo as exclusively responsible for the conduct of the external affairs of the Congo,” the authors of the resolution clearly denied the provincial authorities of the Katanga the right to self-determination. Similarly, the support given by the United States government to the resolution, reaffirmed in several official statements, seems hardly compatible with our long-standing moral commitment to the Wilsonian principle that “the small states of the world have a right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity that the great and powerful states expect and insist upon.” Actually, what may at first sight appear to be a sign of inconsistency is rather a reflection of the fundamental ambiguity in the concept of self-determination.

The Government of the United States and American Foreign Missionaries

1912 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-85
Author(s):  
James Brown Scott ◽  
George F. Seward
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Church Of England ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

It is common knowledge that the United States was originally settled either by God-fearing men and women fleeing from persecution, or by political refugees who were unable to bring about reforms which they believed essential to good government and were unwilling to comply with the state of affaire existing in the Old World, or, finally, by those who, unfortunate at home, were desirous of bettering their condition in the New World. The Pilgrim and the Puritan, the Episcopalian and the Catholic, the Quaker, the Presbyterian and the Lutheran settled the Atlantic Coast. The roundhead and the cavalier, the rich and the poor and the inmate of the debtor’s prison found themselves side by side upon a plane of equality without the traditions and the conservatism of an older world. Whether the colony was composed of Puritans and manifested intolerance to the protestant brother of a different faith; whether the settlement remained loyal to the Church of England, as Virginia, or favored the Catholic, as Maryland, or freely accepted the law-abiding without questioning his religion, as the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the principle of religious toleration steadily gained ground, and by the time of the Revolution it may be said generally that religious differences ceased to influence men or their conduct toward each other, by virtue of a conception of liberty which embraced not merely the right to and protection of property but the freedom of thought, of speech and of public worship. The example of Virginia, which in 1786 established religious freedom by statute, profoundly influenced the Federal Government and the various States of the Union; for, by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and the States of the American Union have, in their various Constitutions, placed the same restriction upon their legislatures. The amendment of the Constitution and the like provisions in State Constitutions were not dictated by indifference or hostility to the principles of the Christian religion, but aimed to prevent not merely the establishment of any one form of religion, however widely spread, but to establish upon a firm footing the right before the law of every religious sect.

scholarly journals Les pouvoirs de légiférer en matière de langue après la « Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 »

2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-297
Author(s):  
Benoît B. Pelletier
Keyword(s):  
New Brunswick ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Manitoba Act

The object of this study is to ascertain the power of the federal and the provincial governments to legislate concerning language in Canada. After a study of the ancillary doctrine as the constitutional basis for the exercise of this power by either level of government, the author studied the constitutional restrictions on its use, and determined the following restrictions : 1. For the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, only : section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which is also an entrenched provision providing minimum rights. 2. For the province of Manitoba only : section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 which is also an entrenched provision providing minimum rights. 3. For the province of New-Brunswick, only : sections 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) and 20(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. 4. For all provinces, subject to the present inapplicability of section 23(1) a) of the new charter concerning the province of Quebec : section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 5. For all provinces and for the federal government : section 16(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, section 15(1) which recognizes the right to equality, and 2b) which recognizes the freedom of expression. Finally the author studied the implications of the reasonable limits' provision outlined in section 1 of the new charter, this constituting the only means for our governments to avoid the application of the charter to their legislation.

The Case for Recognizing Peking Now—or in 1992

Worldview ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Author(s):  
Gerald F. Hyman
Keyword(s):  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
The United States ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
General Question ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

If Secretary of State Vance's “exploratory” trip to China proved nothing else, it demonstrated once again that because our relations with Taiwan are the main obstacles to recognizing the People's Republic of China, it is Taiwan, not mainland China, that poses the main problem for American foreign policy in Asia. To a man the Chinese reiterated their conditions for establishing relations: abrogate the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954; break diplomatic relations with Taiwan; and withdraw the American military personnel from the island. With respect to the general question of Taiwan, they all referred back to the PRC section of the Shanghai Communique (published jointly with our own):The Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China's internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, two governments,” “two Chinas” and “independent Taiwan” or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined” [The “Shanghai Communique,” February 27, 1972].

The Second Session of the Seventy-Seventh Congress

1943 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-305
Author(s):  
Floyd M. Riddick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Of The Union ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Tax Laws ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Poll Tax

The course of affairs in the second session of the Seventy-seventh Congress can best be differentiated from that of all recent years if examined with the thought that the United States is in an “all-out” war. That was how the President presented the situation to Congress on January 6 in his annual message on the state of the Union. And that was the phrase frequently used throughout the year by Representatives and Senators as an argument for or against enacting controversial bills, delegating unprecedented regulative powers, or appropriating many billions of dollars to defray governmental expenses.On the other hand, while all of the recommendations for legislation embodied in the President's message were designed to bring the war more quickly to a close, Congress was asked by the Administration at various times during the year for the enactment of measures not related to the defense program, as the proposals to “rid Congress of trivia” and for settlement of claims of American nationals against the government of Mexico. The House and Senate, likewise, of their own accord, troubled themselves with such matters as the repeal of poll tax laws, the right of Senator Langer to his seat in the Senate, and the so-called “Congressional pension bill.”

Constitutional Law in 1920–1921. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1920

1922 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-244
Author(s):  
Edward S. Corwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Evidential Value ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Decisions ◽  
The Government ◽  
Search Warrant ◽  
The Right

The “self-incrimination” clause of the Fifth Amendment was brought forward in five cases, in three of which it was attended by the “search and seizure” provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The most important of these cases was Gouled v. the United States, in which the court was asked to pass upon the admissibility in evidence, first, of a paper obtained surreptitiously by officers of the government from the office of the accused; and secondly, of papers, described to be of “evidential value only,” which were taken from the office of accused under a search warrant. The court, declaring that the constitutional provisions involved must receive “a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon ‥‥ the rights secured by them,” held that the government had no right to the possession of any of these papers nor to the use of them as evidence. At the same time, it was held that if the government had had the right to seize the papers in question, for instance, as so much contraband property, and had done so under a warrant sufficient in form, “then it would have been competent to use them to prove any crime against accused as to which they constituted relevant evidence.”

Opposition in Congressional Committees: the Rights of the Minority Party

1969 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
John D. Lees
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Majority Party ◽  
Congressional Committees ◽  
Minority Party ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
American Political Science

Political scientists in the United States have in recent years become concerned with analysis of the rights and responsibilities of political opposition. This interest was initially stimulated by the much-quoted, and much-maligned, report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association in 1950 entitled Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. It has been supplemented by the volume edited by Robert Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. Academic rationale for this interest is reflected in the paradox posed by Dahl, who, having cited ‘ the right of an organized opposition to appeal for votes against the government in elections and parliament’ as being one of ‘the three great milestones in the development of democratic institutions’, is then obliged to admit that in the United States ‘it is never easy to distinguish “opposition” from “government”’, and that ‘it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the opposition’. Opposition in the United States political system is nonstructural because of the multiple access points for influence, and opportunities for preventing or inhibiting governmental action are numerous. No single institution illustrates this fact better than Congress. In speaking of Congress, commentators do not talk about ‘the opposition’. They may refer to ‘the minority party’ (and ‘the majority party’), yet even these terms cannot be used at times when the Senate and House are not controlled by the same party. Moreover, internal organizational and procedural patterns in the contemporary Congress allow many opportunities for minority coalitions to check executive policies favoured by a majority coalition in Congress, and such coalitions are often bipartisan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document