politics

so it literally is only in effect for ottawa

it also allows the government to deploy the mounties

which I assume is mostly what it was used for

Actually hold on I am retarded

correct

I was reading the wrong part of that

this is the part dealing with public order

my bad

it is still only valid to 1 specific area at a time

this is all fine and dandy

but what is the rational on deploying the War Measures act

i mean Emergencies Act

Dolf, this is literally no different than the president using his power to push a law through in spite of congress

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

whats that thing called

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????? ?????????????? /

?????????????

I forget the term

trump used some of them

veto?????????

biden used a bunch

executive order?????

that

thank you

executive orders

it is in no way different

yes

because executive orders are not laws

no way the same

****

so they do nothing?

and effect nothing?

no

and are not the president going around a system?

but they are not laws

and can be stopped by the courts

can and have been

this can be stopped by the courts too if it is deemed unlawful

because you do not have rights

I have plenty thanks

your document gives you rights

our constitution prevents them from being taken

it does not grant anything

that is literally semantics

its a huge difference

your constitution also just gives you rights

it does not

it just specificies that you cannot take them

dude, it literally does

no it doesnt

if the constitution did not exist, you would not have those rights

thus, it gives you rights

no

yes

no

you are literally arguing sementics

well actually no i agree

if we didnt have a constitution we would be like canada now

so yeah

"our constitution prevents them from being taken" who gave you the rights in the first place

if it didnt say you cant take them we wouldnt have them

yes

they are called god given rights for a reason

okay, god does not exist

so who gave you the rights

ok but thats not the point

the answer is, the men in charge gave you the rights

decided they are fundemental

then enshrined them

but thats not the constitution giving them

its preventing them from being taken

where did they enshrine them dolf

I wonder

look up the 10th amendment for me pika

okay, that does not say that the constitution did not enshire these rights

whats your point

do you have a document from before the constitution that enshires these rights (that also does not disprove what I am saying, it just moves the goalpost a bit)