While studying the case R. v Hauser, it is clear to see why it is known to be one of the leading constitutional decisions in understanding the workings of Peace, order and good governments in relation to a power struggle of jurisdiction. The whole case surrounds the question on whether the Attorney General, or the Attorney General of Canada should have the power to control the prosecution under the Federal Narcotics Control Act. It is a battle for powers of jurisdiction in regards to the criminal code, and more so the Narcotics Control Act; (NCA), 1961. The Narcotics Act was once Canada’s national drug control statue prior to its repeal in 1996 where the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act took its place. The NCA upheld an international treaty which prohibited the production, and supply of specific drugs; normally narcotics, unless given a licence for specific…
In the Indian Removal the Indians were pushed out of their territory and pushed to new territory. The policy made the Indians live longer making them rich and wealthy with new and extensive territory. The Indian Removal act did its purpose and didn’t end with annihilation from war. The United States benefited the Indians, “The United States will play to send the natives to a land where they may live longer and possibly survive as a people”(Doc A). The act was a benefit to both sides.…
The NAGPRA’s main issue is that people finding these items and selling sacred artifacts of Native Americas. That is why the congress pass the NAGPRA act. “In 1990 Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This act requires a number of institutions, such as museums, federal agencies, and universities, to inventory certain categories of human remains and associated funerary objects. Culturally affiliated tribes are then to be notified of these remains and objects so that they can be reclaimed by the tribes” ("Native American Netroots").…
Does subsection 17(5) of the Act constitute an ameliorative law or program within meaning of s. 15(2) of the Charter? No. Subsection 17(5) of the Act does not establish an ameliorative law to make the conditions of Canadian Aboriginals better within the context of s. 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It takes away the right of other ethnic groups and races from being able to adopt an aboriginal child and is possibly subject to racial discrimination. If it is meant to improve conditions for aboriginals, it may be doing the opposite for other groups of people that are specifically not of aboriginal descent. Subsection 17(5) of the Act states that aboriginal adoption consent is not subject to the section 17(1) of the act,…
The Indian Removal Act The Indian Removal Act was an event that happened in 1838. This event was the removal of the Cherokee. The U.S Congress pass this act so that the americans could move to their lands. It was not right for the americans to take the Cherokee lands.…
Ian Haney Lopez, a Professor at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley primarily works in the areas of racial justice and American law. Lopez is also the author of White by Law, The Legal Construction of Race, which presents a critical look at how race has been recognized by law and it’s legal actors such as judges and policy makers throughout history. The author mainly focuses on analyzing prerequisite cases that in affect, have changed the way that race is perceived today. The book particularly focuses on the legal and social construction of whiteness.…
Picture this: you wake up one morning thinking it’s just going to be a normal day, but then, everything changes. Generals start invading your home and drag you off your front porch and tell you that you can’t live on this land anymore; that it is now for other people to use and have. You can’t grab anything to bring with you. All you have are the clothes and shoes that you have on, nothing more. Think about that.…
Indian Removal: Is it justified? The Act of Removal of the Cherokee Indians was a rough era in history. The Removal of the Indians happened because the citizens of Georgia wanted to mine on their land. The Cherokee Indians had refused to let them mine on their land because the land belonged to the legally and they were not going to let some strangers come and take their land away from them. How would you like it if someone came into your house and told you to leave?…
In the United States legal system, people see justice in terms of punishment. A criminal can receive countless years in prison or even be assigned the death penalty. In the article, “The Restoration of faith,” Amitava Kumar shows how forgiveness and understanding can be a better solution than punishment when it comes to criminals. Kumar uses solid evidence and reasoning in his article to show the benefits of Restorative justice. Therefore, Kumar achieved his goal in writing a convincing argument for restorative justice in his article “Restoration of faith.”…
Recently, Dinesh Kumar was faced with an ethical dilemma. Dinesh, a new hire accountant at O’Brian & McKinney, was asked by Kate McKinney, the company’s co-founder, to investigate the billings of an important client, Russell Brandy. Russell Brandy has been dissatisfied with O’Brian & McKinney, claiming he has been overcharged. As a result, Tom O’Brian, the company’s co-founder, has pushed to fire John Goodfellow, the Account Executive in charge of Russell Brady’s account, and give the account to Danielle Chen. Danielle is the Account Executive in charge of the account of Collin Bennet, a very happy client.…
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 The Indian Removal Act of 1830 is a very highly debated act. According to Johansen (2000), the removal of the “civilized tribes” from their homeland is one of the most notable chapters in history of American land relations (pg. 80). The removal influenced the natives in more ways than you can imagine. They had to change the way they live, the way they do things, the way they dress and even some had to speak a different language if they wanted to remain in their homeland.…
Canada would not be Canada if it were not for the land and wealth that indigenous peoples were deprived of in order for this country to grow. Palmater mentions that the land that rightfully belonged to the Indigenous peoples was unethically taken away from them for the purpose of the country’s farms, oil extraction, mining, and overall development. Both Bonspiel and Kassam argue that this was a cause of the British North America Act of July 1, 1867, which did not declare Canadian independence from Britain, and still allowed them to mistreat the Indigenous peoples by stealing their lands, territories, and resources. A nomadic lifestyle would presumably make one a disqualifier from land title, however even those indigenous nations that were not nomadic, were not Christian, a religion in which Europeans believed was a necessity to own land (Jhappan 6). Palmater also mentions that the Indian Act of 1876 was a large contributor to land claims.…
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 resulted in the forced removal of the Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Creek and Chickasaw tribes from their homelands in Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama to western land. Colonists had been wanting the land held by the Native Americans for a long time, and when Andrew Jackson came into the presidency, he made their dream of owning it a reality – at the expense of the Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act should never have passed, as it was problematic morally, politically and practically. Politically, the act was unconstitutional, and allowing it 's passage would be illegal; it would result in the death of thousands of Native Americans, making it morally reprehensible; and wouldn 't actually…
In an attempt to concoct a new nation in the midst of the 1800s, the United States found itself adjusting to the needs of its infancy. While some policies were passed in order to better the premature Union, struggles ensued when the nation found itself conforming to desires of the South. The Southern states were fixed on an agrarian society, and thus it instituted slavery. The desire to expand west was driven by the desire to acquire more land while increasing the amount of slaves. The North, on the other hand, conscious of what slavery meant by the standards of liberty, outlawed slavery.…
It’s fascinating how people have been able to make so many different definitions for the word culture; a word that was thought to have one singular definition. People of all cultures are unique not just in their methods and ways of life, but also in their definitions of culture. One person can describe culture as something that can bring family and a community together, but another person may define it as the exact opposite; something that tears people apart and in turn will rip apart a community. Neither of them are wrong or right however, because culture is something that is tangible. Culture is something that changes with time instead of against it.…