HST Dies!

[Thoth]

This thread makes me glad that BK will never breed.

[Ben Kenobi]

You display your ignorance again-- 91(29) only gives powers to the feds. Basically the feds have exclusive jurisdiction on the things "excepted" in article 92. So this provision is authority for fderal jurisdiction over things which are specifically listed under the provincial side as exceptions to their more general powers--- like

29 carves out exceptions for the provinces. Plain as day.

2. I find hilarious that I cite 92(2)--- you then demand that I address your "provincial power over trade in the province" argument since mocking was not refuting it apparently --- I do -- again citing 92(2)as a better but apparently losing argument and ask for your trade argument and you cite 92(2) back to me. Most laugable response ever. What happened to your trade in the province argument? I knew about the 92(2) argument. Hell I told you about it.

And you still haven't refuted the argument. Again, for the slow people here, provincial authority for taxation both income and sales stems from trade powers, same as with the Feds.

3. Bottom line is that 92(2) has not been accepted by the courts as a reason to make federal sales taxes unconstitutional,

Goddamn. I already explained to you why it doesn't. FFS.

HST is not a federal sales tax. GST is not HST. There are substantial differences between the two GST is constitutional. HST is not.

HST is used to fund provincial expenditures. This means by section 92-2, that the province is the only one who can raise taxes for provincial expenditures.

As for the notwithstanding clause, the province would have to invoke it to bar section 31 of the Charter. Once they do that, then they could do away with 92-2. Until then HST is unconstitutional. Section 31 says that the 1867 division of powers still is in force, and that 92-2 says that only the province can levy provincial taxes. HST is both a fed and provincial sales tax.

I hope whatever firm you work for doesn't pay you much for your services. This is terrible, Flubber.

[Ben Kenobi]

Language in the co-operation agreement about not affecting constitutional rights is fairly boilerplate and will frequently appear in agreements between the feds and provinces where both their powers are involved. The legions of lawyers involved will be shocked to learn they have been admitting unconstitutionality and I am sure they will amend their practices immediately based on the word of a history tutor

It's boilerplate, because then they can make unconstitutional deals and it's legally 'ok'. No, it doesn't work that way. If I sign an illegal contract, having boilerplate say, "this contract is not illegal" doesn't make the contract anymore legal. Same with constitutionality.

The boilerplate is there, because otherwise the deal would not go off. Why? HST abrogates powers associated with the provinces. Now both parties benefit, which is why the army of lawyers is covering their asses. The problem is that they purported representatives do not actually represent the people they are tasked to represent. This is why the BC deal failed.

The people of BC do not want HST, and their will finally prevailed. They were not asked beforehand. They were lied to by Gordon Campbell who promised them it would not happen. Then he turned around and did what he promised he would not do.

You still are not understanding that HST is not a federal sales tax, and you don't understand that HST is different from the GST. They are two very different things. That GST is constitutional and HST is not, is my argument, and you'd better damn well start arguing against my argument instead of whatever argument you've cobbled up. So far you haven't.

[BlackCat]

This thread makes me glad that BK will never breed.

I might have missed something, but this comment implies knowledgede that no other man should know under normal circumstances - Thoth, what have you done together with BK ?

PS. No explicit descriptions, just use short hand, please

[Thoth]

I might have missed something, but this comment implies knowledgede that no other man should know under normal circumstances - Thoth, what have you done together with BK ?

PS. No explicit descriptions, just use short hand, please

His paleo-Philly attitudes towards women pretty much ensure that he'll never get laid.

That plus the fact that the last time I talked with Jesus, I slipped him a $20 to help stack the odds against BK.


Failing the above, bolt cutters are cheap and he currently lives in Texas so the "he needed gelding" defense will work if worse comes to worst.

[BlackCat]

That bolt cutter may come handy - haven't you heard that the norwegian nutcase have recived several letters from willing women ? I bet that your nutter could get the same.

[Thoth]

That bolt cutter may come handy - haven't you heard that the norwegian nutcase have recived several letters from willing women ? I bet that your nutter could get the same.

*snip* *snip*

[BlackCat]

Aren't you hugging trees in canuckistan while BK are having a fiesta in texas ?

[Flubber]

As for the notwithstanding clause, the province would have to invoke it to bar section 31 of the Charter. Once they do that, then they could do away with 92-2. Until then HST is unconstitutional. Section 31 says that the 1867 division of powers still is in force, and that 92-2 says that only the province can levy provincial taxes. HST is both a fed and provincial sales tax.

I hope whatever firm you work for doesn't pay you much for your services. This is terrible, Flubber.

Ben you are so out of your league here that my amusement at battering you is fading . You got the 29 power for the feds backwards. and your Charter argument seems to be that a province could use the Charter to somehow preclude s31 so the division of powers does not apply--- wow wow stupidest argument ever

The notwithstanding clause is as follows

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

The whole purpose of this clause is that government can decide to infringe a persons rights as set out in section 2 or sections 7-15-- Believ it or not Ben when the Charter in s33 says clause 2 and 7 to 15 THEY DO NOT MEAN CLAUSE 31.
A government cannot bar the operation of article 31 and frankly the CHarter is irrelevant to a division of powers argument

THis is just one exampl;e of where you are demonstrably and provably wrong-- but you are now boring me and besides Mrs Flubber will be home soon so I think I will go for some family time-- maybe tomorrow you can try to instruct me on fatherhood and family life LOL

[Thoth]

Aren't you hugging trees in canuckistan while BK are having a fiesta in texas ?

No.

I'm ****ing a moose like all real men do.

Ben is trying to **** cacti.

[Thoth]

Now *that's* sexy.

1500 kilos of bad attitude. Ya gotta be a real man to **** one of these babies.

[BlackCat]

Now *that's* sexy.

1500 kilos of bad attitude. Ya gotta be a real man to **** one of these babies.

Naw, then I'm a bit less worried - I mean BK could probably get a baby from such one but they are scarce in texas.

PS Do you have to pay alimony when you have children whith such a babe ?

[Thoth]

Naw, then I'm a bit less worried - I mean BK could probably get a baby from such one but they are scarce in texas.

BK isn't a real man. He could never **** a moose.

PS Do you have to pay alimony when you have children whith such a babe ?

[Flubber]

if anyone actually cares about the HST read THIS http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/ncbl...etter_2010.pdf -- Its a newsletter from the Fall of 2010 largely about the constitutional validity of the HST and raises the s91 vs s92 argument that is at least somewaht interesting but ultimately was rejected as they predicted. Its a little dated but a good review

[Ben Kenobi]

I should post your PM here, Flubber. I'm not, but I have to say that's the biggest load of **** I've seen.

You really think that intimidating me in a PM is going to work?