1) Canada's Parliament can end emergency any time by vote. Trudeau does not have a majority in Parliament, cannot control it.
Failing that ...
2) Emergency automatically ends in 30 days unless affirmatively extended by Parliament.
In meantime ...
3) A standing committee of Parliament reviews every emergency act of government in real time.
And also
4) By law, an inquiry must be held into use of emergency powers - with report to Parliament due no later than 360 days after emergency end.
As well ...
5) Any act of government under emergency law is reviewable by courts under Canadian charter of rights.
Also to consider
6) The present emergency law was enacted by a Conservative government precisely to set limits to the emergency powers used by the elder Trudeau in 1970
One correction: It's a "special" not a "standing" committee of parliament that reviews emergency acts ... one that includes both MPs and Senators. Senators serve to age 75 and are more independent of government.
Also ...
The emergency act gives Parliament the option of over-ruling any *single* action of government, so that even if the government is doing generally a reasonable job -but oversteps in one particular - the mistake can be corrected in real time, under the law.
Canadians often complain of the cheerful indifference of Americans to Canadian affairs.
But cheerful indifference right now sure seems a huge improvement over belligerent ignorance.
Compare and contrast Canada's emergency law to the Florida anti-riot law signed by Governor Ron DeSantis that makes it a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison to deface a historical plaque. apnews.com/article/donald…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Anyway, for all those who have spent the day trawling through my tweets, looking for the place where I compared Trump to Hitler ... because I must have done that, right, or else a troll would have to think for a minute and thinking only hurts the troll head ...
... here is what I have said over and over and over again on the subject of Hitler analogies, one more time, and with feeling:
"There are many stops on the train line of bad before you get to Hitler station."
These are highly specific, closely tailored emergency measures. Towing illegally parked vehicles is not exactly the first step on the road to totalitarian night ...
As I read it, there are new financial *reporting* provisions, but no new financial *restrictions*. Since the people doing the truck-protest crowdfunding seem so far to be keeping most of the money for themselves, it's not clear that the protesters would notice any cut-off anyway
Correction to the above: financial institutions will be directed to temporarily freeze accounts suspected of supporting illegal activity without a court order. That is a bigger deal.
Hints for those commenting on invocation of Canada's emergency legislation:
1) This law was passed relatively recently, 1988. It is explicitly subordinate to Canada's charter of rights. It replaced the much more draconian emergency laws that were invoked in 1914, 1939, and 1970
2) The legislation allows for a *range* of actions by authorities, proportionate to the civil disturbance. Proportionately is the thing that the courts will probably examine most closely when they review any actions taken.
3) It's not "fascist" for an elected government to invoke duly enacted emergency laws, reviewable by courts, to deal with disturbances. What is a lot more fascist-y, on the other hand, are extremist groups who blockade commerce in hopes of coercing the state to yield to demands
It's a very good bet than *an* impeachment is coming if GOP wins the House. But whom? In 2021, some legal experts areud that a former president can be impeached. At the time, most GOPers rejected this theory. If they win the House, they may rediscover it - lawfareblog.com/can-former-pre…
- and go after former President Obama on some theory based on some of the allegations rolled out by John Durham. An Obama impeachment would be much more exciting to GOP small-donor base - and much more lucrative to the large industry that fundraises from that base.
It's not a new thing to use Supreme Court appointments to score social "firsts" ... a thread. 1/x
In 1887, President Grover Cleveland decided the time had come to appoint the first Deep Southerner to the Supreme Court since the civil war. (President Hayes had appointed Kentuckyian John Marshall Harlan in 1877, but Harlan had fought for the Union.) 2/x
Cleveland had squeaked into office in 1884 by the tiniest of margins. Facing a tough re-elect in 1888 (which he would lose), Cleveland wanted to excite the white conservative Southern base of his Democratic party. The nomination was a chance to try. 3/x