Problem 1: Alexander Hamilton described a constitution as the prior will of the people and the fundamental law which should take precedence over later legislative decisions. If that is true, should we have great respect for the constitution as it is written (revere it; stay as close as possible to its wording or intention when interpreting it) or rather see it as a set of broad "guidelines" in need of constant updating?
Source: [Alexander Hamilton: the power of judicial review over legislative action "only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental." (Federalist 78)
This classic defense of judicial review emphasizes that constitutions reflect the will of the people and that they are fundamental laws; as such they should take precedence over subsequent legislation made by particular legislatures at particular times]
2. The addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Constitution has enhanced the role of the SCC relative to parliaments (i.e. courts are striking down more laws passed by parliaments). Is this a good development? Explain.