International Criminal Court

[FiveParadox]

I think not, the Supreme Court of Canada is not a component of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rather, I believe that the presence of the Supreme Court, in its current form, is in force and effect due to the Supreme Court Act. Someone correct me if I am in error, please.

 

[Jay]

Yes I do, but wouldn't that be a matter for the US Supreme Court to decide, whether or not is was constitutional?

 

[I think not]

OK, does your Supreme Court Act have to be amended for the International Criminal Court? Just as an example, if a Canadian was charged with a war crime, would he have to be tried by the International Criminal Court or can your Supreme Court do it?

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: International Crimina

Why would the US submit to such a court? Why is it in America's interest?

Because if America does not join the rest of the world the rest of the world must crush America, if you don't believe this can be done stay tuned.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: International Criminal Court

Yes I do, but wouldn't that be a matter for the US Supreme Court to decide, whether or not is was constitutional?

I have to look into this, it peaked my curiosity. I know the US Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals. I'll see if I can find anything.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: International Crimina

Why would the US submit to such a court? Why is it in America's interest?

Because if America does not join the rest of the world the rest of the world must crush America, if you don't believe this can be done stay tuned.

Less than half the countries ratified it, we'll stay with that half.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: International Criminal Court

Yes I do, but wouldn't that be a matter for the US Supreme Court to decide, whether or not is was constitutional?

I have to look into this, it peaked my curiosity. I know the US Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals. I'll see if I can find anything.

They would just rule as to whether or not the government of the US had the right to send you to that court. The answer is probably no.

 

[FiveParadox]

Supreme Court Act[/i]]Exclusive ultimate appellate jurisdiction

52. The Court shall have and exercise exclusive ultimate appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction within and for Canada, and the judgment of the Court is, in all cases, final and conclusive.

R.S., c. S-19, s. 54.

It would appear that Section 52 of the Supreme Court Act would need to be amended in order to recognize another court as a higher authority on certain matters; a subsection appended to Section 52 could quite effectively do this, by excluding matters of war crimes from the exclusivity of the Supreme Court's otherwise-ultimate appellate jurisdiction.

This would require only an Act of Parliament (not any amendment to the Constitution Act, 1982) and, therefore, could be implemented without too much trouble (barring, of course, controversy in the Houses themselves).

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: International Criminal Court

Yes I do, but wouldn't that be a matter for the US Supreme Court to decide, whether or not is was constitutional?

I have to look into this, it peaked my curiosity. I know the US Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals. I'll see if I can find anything.

They would just rule as to whether or not the government of the US had the right to send you to that court. The answer is probably no.

Well here is a paragraph from wikipedia:

ICC incompatible with U.S. Constitution
Another argument is that the ICC may be incompatible with the current U.S. Constitution, as it would create a court of appeals above the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, ratification of the ICC treaty might first require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because the ICC takes cases where it deems the host nation is not willing to do enough to prosecute a crime, it may – theoretically at least – be possible for someone to appeal to the ICC after losing a case before the Supreme Court.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: International Criminal Court

I think not, the Supreme Court of Canada is not a component of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rather, I believe that the presence of the Supreme Court, in its current form, is in force and effect due to the Supreme Court Act. Someone correct me if I am in error, please.

I thought it was the BNA Act that gave it it's power, and the Supreme Court Act was an act to change the Court in some respect.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Supreme Court of Canada was not given force by the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act — however, the BNA Act no longer exists). The Supreme Court was created by the Parliament of Canada some period of time after Confederation. Not many people know that, though.

 

[FiveParadox]

In fact, even when the Supreme Court of Canada was created, it was not the final court of appeal in Canada — decisions could be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Queen's Most Honourable Privy Council in the United Kingdom. Canada didn't stop appealing to the Privy Council until a few years ago.

:!: Revision : Resolved a formatting error.

 

[Jay]

The BNA Act no longer exists?

 

[FiveParadox]

Its name was changed to the Constitution Act, 1867 upon the repatriation of the constitution in 1982.

 

[Jay]

I see. We always refer to it as the BNA Act.

 

[FiveParadox]

That's okay, hehe; people know what one is referring to by either name.

Nonetheless, on a point of clarity: The British North America Act became the Constitution Act, 1867; the new constitution provisions, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were enacted as the Constitution Act, 1982; and the Act that granted the exclusive right of Canada to legislate on its own behalf was the Canada Act, passed by the Parliament Assembled of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: International Criminal Court

In fact, even when the Supreme Court of Canada was created, it was not the final court of appeal in Canada — decisions could be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Queen's Most Honourable Privy Council in the United Kingdom. Canada didn't stop appealing to the Privy Council until a few years ago.

:!: Revision : Resolved a formatting error.

I thought that stopped with the Statute of Westminster.

 

[FiveParadox]

Quite correct, my apologies. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ceased in 1949. It should be noted, however, that some constitutional experts assert that the First Nations people would have the right to appeal to the Privy Council on treaty matters, since their relationship with the Crown predates that of their relationship with the Government of Canada.

 

[Jay]

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/constitution/constitution15_e.html

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: International Criminal Court

Quite correct, my apologies. Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ceased in 1949. It should be noted, however, that some constitutional experts assert that the First Nations people would have the right to appeal to the Privy Council on treaty matters, since their relationship with the Crown predates that of their relationship with the Government of Canada.

Wasn't that in 1931?