Substantive Due Process= Fundamental
Freedoms
•1 Freedom of conscience and religion
•2 Freedom of thought
•3 Freedom of belief
•4 Freedom of expression
•5 Freedom of the press
•6 Freedom
Procedural Due Process= Legal Rights
(fundamental Justice)
•1 Right to life
•2 Right to liberty
•3 Right to security
•4 Right to not be arbitrarily detained or
imprisoned
•5 Right- on arrest or detention- to: be
informed of the reason, to be informed
of the right to retain and instruct
counsel without delay, to have validity
of the detention determined by way of
habeas corpus and to b released if
detention not valid
•6 Right- when charged with an offense-
to: be informed without delay, be tried
within reasonable time, not be
compelled to be witness in proceedings
against that person in respect to
offense, presumed innocent, not to
deny bail without cause, trial by jury,
not found guilty on any act of omission,
if acquitted not to be tried again on
same offense, benefit of lesser
punishment.
•7 Right to not be submitted to cruel
treatment
•8 Right to witness protection
•9 Right to interpreter
-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
"No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just
compensation."
The reference in the 5th Amendment applies
only to the federal government and its courts
and agencies. The reference in the 14th
Amendment extends protection of due
process to all state governments, agencies,
and courts.
Due process, in the context of the United
States, refers to how and why laws are
enforced. It applies to all persons, citizen or
alien, as well as to corporations.
In that, the "how" is procedural due process.
Is a law too vague? Is it applied fairly to all?
Does a law presume guilt? A vagrancy law
might be declared too vague if the definition
of a vagrant is not detailed enough. A law
that makes wife beating illegal but permits
husband beating might be declared to be an
unfair application. A law must be clear, fair,
and have a presumption of innocence to
comply with procedural due process.
-Amendment V, United States Constitution
"The "why" is substantive due process. Even
if an unreasonable law is passed and signed
into law legally (procedural due process),
substantive due process can make the law
unconstitutional. Another application has
been to strike down legislation requiring
certain non-dangerous mentally ill persons be
confined against their will.
Generally, due process guarantees the

“Independence of the judiciary is the idea
that the judiciary needs to be kept away from
the other branches of government. That is,
courts should not be subject to improper
influence from the other branches of
government, or from private or partisan
interests. Different nations deal with the idea
of judicial independence through different
means of judicial selection, or choosing
judges. One way to promote judicial
independence is by granting life tenure or
long tenure for judges, which ideally frees
them to decide cases and make rulings
according to the rule of law and judicial
discretion, even if those decisions are
politically unpopular or opposed by powerful
interests. But they may have conflicts with
republicanism and they could support it. In
some countries, the ability of the judiciary to
check the legislature is enhanced by the
power of judicial review. This power can be
used, for example, when the judiciary
perceives that legislators are jeopardizing
constitutional rights such as the rights of the
accused."
"Canada has a level of judicial independence
entrenched in its Constitution, awarding
superior court justices various guarantees to
independence under sections 96 to 100 of the
Constitution Act, 1867. These include rights
to tenure (although the Constitution has since
been amended to introduce mandatory
following (this list is not exhaustive):
Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a
competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
Laws must be written so that a reasonable
person can understand what is criminal
behavior
Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
Property may be taken by the government
only for public purposes
Owners of taken property must be fairly
compensated"
-www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html
"Federal courts
Article III of the United States Constitution
establishes the federal courts as part of the
federal government.
The Constitution provides that federal judges,
including judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States, are appointed by the President
"by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate." Once appointed, federal judges:
...both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,
and shall, at stated Times, receive for their
Services a Compensation which shall not be
diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Federal judges vacate office only upon death,
resignation, or impeachment and removal
from office by Congress; only 13 federal
judges have ever been impeached.
The President is free to appoint any person to
the federal bench, yet typically he consults
with the American Bar Association, whose
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
rates each nominee "Well Qualified,"
"Qualified" or "Not Qualified." For instance,
David Souter was appointed in the Supreme
Court by the first President George Bush in
1990 but in Bush v. Gore case in 2000 vote
with minority against George W. Bush's legal
position. It was specially mentioned in the
book, written in Russian and bearing Souter's
name in the title.[6] Justice of the
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
Yury Danilov, reviewing the book in a Moscow
retirement at age 75) and the right to a
salary determined by the Parliament of
Canada (as opposed to the executive). In
1982 a measure of judicial independence was
extended to inferior courts specializing in
criminal law (but not civil law) by section 11
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, although in the 1986 case Valente
v. The Queen it was found these rights are
limited. They do, however, involve tenure,
financial security and some administrative
control.
The year 1997 saw a major shift towards
judicial independence, as the Supreme Court
of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference
found an unwritten constitutional norm
guaranteeing judicial independence to all
judges, including civil law inferior court
judges. The unwritten norm is said to be
implied by the preamble to the Constitution
Act, 1867. Consequently, judicial
compensation committees such as the
Judicial Compensation and Benefits
Commission now recommend judicial salaries
in Canada. There are two types of judicial
independence: institutional independence
and decisional independence. Institutional
independence means the judicial branch is
independent from the executive and
legislative branches. Decisional independence
is the idea that judges should be able to
decide cases solely based on the law and
facts, without letting the media, politics or
other concerns sway their decisions, and
without fearing penalty in their careers for
their decisions."
-Wikipedia: Independence of the Judiciary,
Canada
"A Canadian Prime Minister can appoint judges,
ratify treaties, send Canadian men and women
into war, negotiate trade agreements, make
patronage appointments, set the date of elections
to suit his or her political advantage, determine
when Parliament will be prorogued, when it will be
recalled, and appoint the most senior public
servants, all without reference to the MPs
Canadians have elected to represent them. This is
a parliamentary dictatorship and it must be
brought to an end."-Bill Blakie: Member of
Parliament (NDP)
English-language daily, made the following
remark on Souter's position in Bush v. Gore
case: "In a most critical and delicate
situation, David Souter had maintained the
independence of his position and in this
respect had become a symbol of the
independence of the judiciary."[7]
[edit]State courts
State courts deal with independence of the
judiciary in many ways, and several forms of
judicial selection are used for both trial courts
and appellate courts (including state supreme
courts), varying between states and
sometimes within states. In some states,
judges are elected (sometime on a partisan
ballot, other times on a nonpartisan one),
while in others they are appointed by the
governor or state legislature.
The 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, in which a
majority of the Supreme Court, including
some appointees of the first President Bush,
over-ruled challenges to the election of the
President Bush then pending in the Florida
Supreme Court, whose members had all been
appointed by Democratic governors, is seen
by many as reinforcing the need for judicial
independence, both with regard to the Florida
Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court.
This case has focused increased attention on
judicial outcomes as opposed to the
traditional focus on judicial qualifications."
-Wikipedia: Independence of the Judiciary,
United States
"First Amendment: “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.”
Virtually all of the law that has defined press
freedom in the United States is derived from
that short absolute phrase. It is a prohibition

“There are of course limits to free speech and
free press guarantees, as the Canadian
Supreme Court is quite ready to point out. For
example, even though the press enjoys core
constitutional rights of access and
publication, they do not have protection for
all operational means and methods the press
may choose to adopt. The press does not, for
example, enjoy immunity if they run a
pedestrian down in pursuit of a new story
under the guise of "freedom of the press".
Nor is a violent attack on someone
considered to be expression. Understanding
freedom of expression requires not only
understanding its place in the Canadian
constitution, but also, understanding it within
the context of society and society's
competing values.”
-Jonathan Wheelwright
(www.unitednorthamerica.org/democracy)
“The Prime Minister (PM), while not directly
elected by the people in national elections, is
traditionally an elected representative of the
party that has the most seats in the House of
Commons. Besides being able to preside as
an un-elected official in the Senate (this has
happened twice in Canada's history), the
appointed leader has a host of unilateral
powers:
To appoint the Governor General of Canada
(through whom the PM technically exercises
most of his/her powers, some of which are
listed below);
To appoint Senators to the Canadian Senate;
To appoint Supreme Court justices and other
federal justices;
To appoint all members of the Cabinet;
To appoint the entire board of the Bank of
Canada;
To appoint the heads of the military, Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, and other
government agencies;
To appoint CEO's and Chairs of crown
corporations such as CBC;
To dissolve Parliament and choose the time of
the next federal election (within a 5 year
limit);
on federal (and, through the Fourteenth
Amendment, state) government action,
censorship, and control over the media. It
does not attempt to define “the press,” nor
does it predicate the exercise of rights on the
fulfillment of duties or responsibilities."
-http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-
english/2003/February/20080817223640Sren
oD0.5668756.html
"Elections for President and Vice President of
the United States are indirect elections in
which voters cast ballots for a slate of
electors of the U.S. Electoral College, who in
turn directly elect the President and Vice
President. They occur quadrennially (the
count beginning with the year 1792) on
Election Day, the Tuesday between
November 2 and 8.[1] The most recent
election occurred on November 4, 2008, with
the next one scheduled for November 6,
2012.
The process is regulated by a combination of
both federal and state laws. Each state is
allocated a number of Electoral College
electors equal to the number of its Senators
and Representatives in the U.S. Congress.[2]
Additionally, Washington, D.C. is given a
number of electors equal to the number held
by the smallest state.[3] U.S. territories are
not represented in the Electoral College.
Under the U.S. Constitution, each state
legislature is allowed to designate a method
of choosing electors.[2] Thus, the popular
vote on Election Day is conducted by the
various states and not directly by the federal
government. Once chosen, the electors can
vote for anyone, but – with rare exceptions
To run for re-election indefinitely (no term
limits);
To remove Members of Parliament (MPs) from
the ruling party's caucus;
To deny any MP the right to participate in
parliamentary debate or run for re-election;
To dismiss individuals or groups of
representatives from serving in Parliament;
To ratify treaties; and
To declare war.”
- -Wikipedia: United States Presidency
www.unitednorthamerica.org/democracy.htm
"Lobbying has been a part of Canadian
politics from the earliest colonial period. The
grants, monopolies and concessions that
made possible the early voyages of Cartier,
Gilbert, Frobisher, Hudson and others were
obtained through lobbying at court; the
decisions that favoured the FAMILY COMPACT organizations they represent and the
and the CHÂTEAU CLIQUE were the result of
lobbying the British Cabinet and Parliament.
Popular stereotype depicts the lobbyist as a
well-dressed, cigar-smoking individual who
corrupts public officials in order to obtain
their support for the schemes of moneyed
interests. This figure can certainly be found in some lobbying activities occur with city
the many scandals - from the PACIFIC
SCANDAL onwards - that Canada, in common
with other political systems, has experienced. populous counties.
But few lobbyists work to achieve their ends
through venal lobbying. The great majority
earn their salaries by applying their
knowledge of how policy is made and how to
obtain access to the policy processes.
Election promises led to the Lobbyists
Registration Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 2007 increased regulation and transparency.
1985, c. 44 [4th. Supp]) which required
lobbyists to register. An electronic data base
was established and lobbyists working on a
consulting basis were required to identify
their clients, the agencies they were
approaching and the object of lobbying.
Lobbyists working for associations or
corporations were asked only to identify
themselves and their employers. Critics found
these information requirements too modest;
the sanctions imposed on those who did not
register, inadequate, and the investigative
powers of the Registrar too limited. The fact
like an unpledged elector or faithless elector –
they vote for their designated candidates and
their votes are certified by Congress in early
January. The Congress is the final judge of the
electors; the last serious dispute was in the
2000 election.
The nomination process, including the
primary elections and the nominating
conventions, were never specified in the
Constitution, and were instead developed by
the states and the political parties."
Elections
"The ability of individuals, groups, and
corporations to lobby the government is
protected by the right to petition[13] in the
First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Lobbyists use time spent with
legislators to explain the goals of the
obstacles elected officials face when dealing
with issues, to clients.
Lobbying activities are also performed at the
state level, and lobbyists try to influence
legislation in the state legislatures in each of
the 50 states. At the local municipal level,
council members and county commissioners,
especially in the larger cities and more
Since 1998, 43 percent of the 198 members
of Congress who left government to join the
private sector have registered to lobby using
the 'revolving door of influence'. The
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of
In 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama signed
two related executive orders and three
presidential memoranda on his first day in
office[14] with the goal of making his
administration more open, transparent, and
accountable."
-Wikipedia: United States Lobby Groups
that the Registrar is a public servant, and
thus subject to influence by the government
of the day, also drew criticism from those who
felt that the administration of the registry
should be at arm's length from the
government.

-
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind
ex.cfm?
PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004733