Logically, Dion Has Acted Contrary To The Constitution
From recent blogs, the idea that the Dion/May deal is unconstitutional has arisen. Cerberus this morning discusses every EDA (Electoral District Association) has a right to elect a candidate and thus the deal is possibly problematic in that regard. Liberal Outsider in a convoluted form points that Dion is "contradicting" a very purpose of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Upon looking at both cases I feel that both are of concern; however when reading the
Liberal Party's Constitution it is demonstratable that the Dion/May deal was at least not in correspondence with the Constitution.
In "Chapter 1 - Founding Provisions" Section 2-1 states:
1) The fundamental purposes of the Party are:
Now in the non-compete agreement made between Dion and May, Dion clearly does not endorse a member of the Party for election in the riding of Central Nova. This seems quite blantant to me to be acting against the Constitution.
The second point could also be argued quite well to be supporting evidence, as Dion, by this agreement did not advocate or support Liberal philosophies, principles and policies. The Green Party's principles and policies are not the Liberal Party's, yet for Central Nova Dion suggests they are.
One could argue about the impact on the local riding Liberals, as did Cerberus and Liberal Outsider, howerver that can be construed many different ways as there are many Liberals in that riding and therefore many perspectives. But one thing that cannot be miscontrued is the logical conclusion that Stephane Dion has acted against the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Upon looking at both cases I feel that both are of concern; however when reading the
Liberal Party's Constitution it is demonstratable that the Dion/May deal was at least not in correspondence with the Constitution.
In "Chapter 1 - Founding Provisions" Section 2-1 states:
1) The fundamental purposes of the Party are:
(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election
to the House of Commons and supporting their election;
(b) to advocate and support Liberal philosophies, principles and
policies;
Now in the non-compete agreement made between Dion and May, Dion clearly does not endorse a member of the Party for election in the riding of Central Nova. This seems quite blantant to me to be acting against the Constitution.
The second point could also be argued quite well to be supporting evidence, as Dion, by this agreement did not advocate or support Liberal philosophies, principles and policies. The Green Party's principles and policies are not the Liberal Party's, yet for Central Nova Dion suggests they are.
One could argue about the impact on the local riding Liberals, as did Cerberus and Liberal Outsider, howerver that can be construed many different ways as there are many Liberals in that riding and therefore many perspectives. But one thing that cannot be miscontrued is the logical conclusion that Stephane Dion has acted against the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Labels: Dion Constitution Cerberus Liberal Outsider Central Nova Unconstitutional Party
posted by Daniel Mosely at 10:14 AM
15 Comments:
I have been worrying about those poor Liberal voters for awhile, and it bothers me.,. Has this not been done before in the party ? What about a Liberal running as an Independent ?
(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election
to the House of Commons and supporting their election;
He has endorsed or will members. It says nothing about in every riding. You're reasoning, if it stems solely from sections quoted, is terrible.
He will not endorse members in the riding of Central Nova, this contradicts exactly the mentioned portion of the Constitution.
Please tell me how this does not contradict.
You're argument that he endorsed some in other ridings is weak because the very portion quoted says it's the Liberal Party's purpose to endorse and support it's members for election. Therefore if there is an opportunity for the Party to do so, the Party MUST as dictated by it's PURPOSE.
You are reading words into this section that are not there. This section says nothing specifically about Central Nova or any other riding for that matter.
THE PURPOSES OF THE LIBERAL PARTY INCLUDE:
(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election
to the House of Commons and supporting their election;
He will not endorse members in the riding of Central Nova.
How does this not contradict?
.. because he is to participating in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election
to the House of Commons and supporting their election in 307 ridings.
Also, he will have candidates in 308 ridings running who think he should be Prime Minister, and the Liberal party should be the government.
For the record, I did say pretty explicitly that I don't think Dion is doing anything against the Constitution. Don't forget, he has the full right to refuse to sign the nomination papers of any and all candidates AND there is nothing requiring him to run 308 candidates.
Where the conundrum lies is at the local level where the riding association DOESN'T have that flexibility. Now, there is no requirement that somebody MUST run for the nomination, but there IS a requirement that a nomination election be called.
Anonymous:
By that logic as long as Dion endorsed two Liberal Members and supported them he'd have fulfilled this purpose. That is absurd.
A purpose is not a goal, it is the reason for something to exist. You cannot have it apply to segments of the electoral system.
If any other purpose of the Liberal Party was construed that it only applied to some and not all possible circumstances then the Party would be a joke.
The Constitution in your opinion should read then:
(b) to advocate and support Liberal philosophies, principles and
policies in some circumstances, in others we'll be arbitrary;
(c) to promote membership in the Party, well we'll see. If a situation arises in a riding or two, we'll sweep it under the rug.
(d) to raise money to support the fundamental purposes of the
Party, hell yeah! This one is unbreachable, no way are we compromising on this one. The others well yeah, but this one, Don't touch it.
(e) to provide a forum for members of the Party to have their say
and influence the policies and platform of the Party, that is if we choose to.
(f) to coordinate the activities of supporters of the Party, maybe, like we say, these purpose depend on the circumstances. I guess you could call these reall oportunities rather than purposes.
(g) to ensure equitable representation of aboriginal peoples at all
levels of the Party, well that's only in some ridings. This isn't for all ridings.
Not so - go look up the part about emergency rules and election rules. The power of the campaign co-chairs and the leader is virtually unfettered.
You have posted very selected excerpts.
If what you right were the case, how could the Leader protect MPs, for example?
I don't care about MPs. Having MPs is not our Party's purpose.
Helping Liberals to get elected is.
The purpose of the Party is to spread Liberalism by helping Liberals get elected.
If there was an opportunity to get a Liberal elected and Dion didn't allow it, he acted contrary to the purpose of the party.
I disagree Cerberus. Read the above post. I don't think the Constitution requires 308 candidates because that's suicidal if the Liberal Party ever fell into disrepute and found that to be impossible. However, I believe the Constitution does require 308 candidates if it is possible as it is a fundamental purpose of the Party.
Well, King didn't run Liberals in all ridings in 1926 and 1942. As a direct result, King won majorities we have the Canadian social safety net.
But just because I think Dion is within his rights as leader, doesn't mean I think this is smart. I most assuredly do not.
Just because acts in the past happened, doesn't mean they were right then, and it certainly doesn't mean they are right now.
King did what he did because he thought what he was doing was right, and it turns out he was. So I assume one could argue the same with Dion; however these ways of manipulating the Electoral system (In Dion's case against the Liberal Party's Constitution too, I don't have the Liberal Party's 1926 Constitution) in them selves don't imply their issues are issues worth championing for.
The only sure way of having an issue that is worth fighting for is debate and have a discussion where your issue is found to be the most important or pressing. To gerrymander the election by breaching fundamental purposes of your Party, no matter if your right (and I don't think Dion is) is wrong.
So.. are you trying to lead the coup d'etat? against Dion, Daniel?
Whatever works to get the Conservatives out of power works for me. I realize some Liberals arent used to the politics of cooperation and coalition and working together with other allies to get rid of a common foe.. but that's what Dion is doing.
I would have approved of this measure before Dec 13, when I was a mere Progressive Blogger and one who was very anti-Harper.. and I assuredly approve of this measure now that I am a Liberal member.
I am not advocating a coup d'etat as I believe Liberalism is the best ideology. But I believe wrong is wrong and something should be done about it. That's why I am involved in politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home