by Audrey Lamothe (University of Montreal)
ABSTRACT
In the United States of America, the legislative branch owes deference to decisions taken by the executive regarding immigration and national security. The national security motive for combating terrorism is being used to excess by the government. It is normal to assume that it may be a subterfuge of the latter in order to achieve its ends. It’s a disturbing mechanism, because the elected official, the one who is supposed to represent the people, the one who is elected by democracy, uses the exception of the exception in order to achieve its objectives and thereby to override our fundamental rights, which are the basis of any rule of law. The use of courts to verify the legality of a law should be a last resort. Indeed, since there is a hierarchy of norms, a law that contravenes the Constitution should not even be drafted, let alone passed. This article will set out various laws passed by governments which have either been challenged in court or which raise many controversies within the population. Security or freedom, do we really have to choose?
Working Paper: Libertés fondamentales sacrifiées au nom de la sécurité nationale_ Bienvenue à l’ère 2.0
Citation: Audrey Lamothe, "Libertés fondamentales sacrifiées au nom de la sécurité nationale? Bienvenue à l’ère 2.0", Working Paper n°16, OSN, 2017.
This content has been updated on 13 April 2017 at 10 h 23 min.
Comments