Talk:Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 was copied or moved into Court system of Canada with this edit on April 16, 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was copied or moved into Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 with this edit on April 17, 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Preamble of 1867: Lamer's crock of nonsense[edit]

It would be important for anyone interested in the Preamble of 1867 to become familiar with the dissent of Mr. Justice La Forest in Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Ref re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1541/index.do?r=AAAAAQAaY2FzdGxlIG9mIHRoZSBjb25zdGl0dXRpb24B

And the whole thing is not a judgment, ruling or decision, it's a non-binding, non-judicial opinion on a question referred by the government. Which is why it is very important to not take it as "law".

The dissent of La Forest J. begins at paragraph 296 of the above-linked opinion.

- 30 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.140.7 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated "Judicial independence" section[edit]

I'm guessing "Judicial independence" was placed in this article at some point because the Preamble is one of the sources of law for the principle of judicial independence, but the section doesn't make that connection, and a large chunk of it seems to be about Constitution Act, 1867 s. 96 and not related to the Preamble at all. Kudu ^~I/O~ 02:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved most of that detailed information on judicial independence into a new section of the existing article, Court system of Canada. I think that's a better fit for it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]