27.12.04 [ Amendments ] 0 comments 
Wondering what the hell, "[...] belonging to several provinces of Canada ... shall belong to the several provinces ... in which the same situate or arise ... [...]," is supposed to mean, I ventured for the source: Section 92 of the Constitution Act (1982).
Except, my copy ends at Section 42; the Department of Justice copy ends at Section 61; each anonymous google source I've checked out also has differing numbers of sections.
Firstly, what is wrong with legislators? Is it truly possible that the damn thing is amended so frequently that it is impossible to discern which copy is current, much less reference an article or fact check a precedent?
Secondly, I think there is some kind of mistake. For, I did find a Section 92, but there was no mention of legislative authority concerning mineral and resource royalties (since this was from the British North America Act, it is no real wonder).
So, it seems like no big deal, right? Guy just referenced the wrong Act, it could happen to anyone (I've probably done something similar thousands of times). But, there are starker consequences: there is no section which addresses legislative powers with respect to natural resource harvesting in the modern Constitution Act (1982) and the old Constitution Act (1867) has the known problems of vagueness and jurisdictional overlap. Further, I have a reference in this course material which claims that the issues have been resolved to a great extent yet the citation is apparently, empty.
There must be a better explanation than "agents of governance are exploiting future generations' natural resources unchecked by legislative liability" but it escapes me for the moment.
Except, my copy ends at Section 42; the Department of Justice copy ends at Section 61; each anonymous google source I've checked out also has differing numbers of sections.
Firstly, what is wrong with legislators? Is it truly possible that the damn thing is amended so frequently that it is impossible to discern which copy is current, much less reference an article or fact check a precedent?
Secondly, I think there is some kind of mistake. For, I did find a Section 92, but there was no mention of legislative authority concerning mineral and resource royalties (since this was from the British North America Act, it is no real wonder).
So, it seems like no big deal, right? Guy just referenced the wrong Act, it could happen to anyone (I've probably done something similar thousands of times). But, there are starker consequences: there is no section which addresses legislative powers with respect to natural resource harvesting in the modern Constitution Act (1982) and the old Constitution Act (1867) has the known problems of vagueness and jurisdictional overlap. Further, I have a reference in this course material which claims that the issues have been resolved to a great extent yet the citation is apparently, empty.
There must be a better explanation than "agents of governance are exploiting future generations' natural resources unchecked by legislative liability" but it escapes me for the moment.
Post a Comment