Show simple item record

dc.contributor.supervisor McCormick, Peter
dc.contributor.author Hastings, Kalen Michael
dc.contributor.author University of Lethbridge. Faculty of Arts and Science
dc.date.accessioned 2014-10-28T18:02:05Z
dc.date.available 2014-10-28T18:02:05Z
dc.date.issued 2013
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10133/3568
dc.description.abstract In the post-Charter era, Canada’s national high court has developed a distinct political philosophy that guides the manner in which they dispose of federalism disputes. Although adherents to the “pendulum theory” of judicial review believe that federalism “balance” is created and maintained through a series of offsetting federal-provincial “wins” and “losses,” I suggest that the Supreme Court’s tolerance and embrace of legislative concurrency flows out of a deeper, conscious desire to facilitate intergovernmental relations in Canada. This approach is implicit in both the doctrines they apply and the policy statements they make. The Court is reluctant to declare laws invalid and avoids application of what they refer to as the “constraining” interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision-making philosophy in federalism cases is not value-free, however. While the Supreme Court’s post-Charter preference for “balance” and “flexibility” reinforces the practice of intergovernmental collaboration—a political convention—it simultaneously undermines the political ideals the Fathers of Confederation intended federalism to serve. The jurisprudence of “restraint” suppresses the civic virtues that naturally emanate from a classical, originalist reading of the division of powers. In Judging Federalism I seek to bridge the gap by attempting to understand the Supreme Court’s federalism case law vis-à-vis the moral underpinnings of our Constitution. en_US
dc.language.iso en_CA en_US
dc.publisher Lethbridge, Alta. : University of Lethbridge, Dept. of Political Science en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Thesis (University of Lethbridge. Faculty of Arts and Science) en_US
dc.subject Supreme Court of Canada en_US
dc.subject post-Charter en_US
dc.subject legislative concurrency en_US
dc.subject division of powers en_US
dc.subject federalism jurisprudence en_US
dc.subject Canada. Supreme Court -- Decision making
dc.subject Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
dc.subject Constitutional law -- Canada
dc.subject Dissertations, Academic
dc.title Judging federalism : a full circle account of the Supreme Court of Canada's post-Charter federalism jurisprudence en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US
dc.publisher.faculty Arts and Science en_US
dc.publisher.department Department of Political Science en_US
dc.degree.level Masters en_US
dc.degree.level Masters
dc.proquest.subject 0615 en_US
dc.proquest.subject 0385 en_US
dc.proquest.subject 0398 en_US
dc.proquestyes Yes en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record