# data[].attributes.body
The most common arguments surrounding the notwithstanding clause focus on the question of whether the use of clause was for the public good or if it was just a means for the government to force the passing of laws that are unjust. Using your understanding of the Wells article on the notwithstanding clause, and the Policy Options article on Bill 21, explain what you feel constitutes both appropriate and inappropriate uses of the notwithstanding clause, and if there should be a balance to the way in which the clause is invoked.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Russell: “To defend the notwithstanding clause is not to oppose the Charter. After all, it is part of the Charter. It was included in the Charter for a very good reason: a belief that there should be a parliamentary check on a fallible judiciary’s decisions on the metes and bounds of our fundamental rights and freedoms.” Do you agree with this statement? Can you support the Charter while opposing Section 33? Does defending the notwithstanding clause inherently mean opposing judicial activism, or can both coexist in a healthy legal system?

# data[].attributes.body
Should the Notwithstanding Clause be abolished or should its use be restricted/limited? What is the procedure for abolishing or amending the Notwithstanding Clause? What methods to restrict/limit the use of the Notwithstanding Clause can you think of?

# data[].attributes.body
Leckey advocates for a more expansive interpretation of Charter remedies, suggesting that the remedies clause (section 24) remains operative even when section 33 is invoked.  How could this interpretation influence future constitutional litigation in Canada? What are the potential risks or benefits of allowing courts to award damages for laws protected by section 33, and how might this affect the relationship between the judiciary and legislative bodies?

# data[].attributes.body
The policy-making process involves public servants, legislators, interested members of the public, interest groups, and judges. Keeping in mind the five stages in the circular public policy process, accounting for the intervention of courts, which actor has the most influence on the policy-making process? Which actor do you believe should have the most influence on the policy-making process?

# data[].attributes.body
Please refer to The Road to Patriation Documentary in your answers.

a) How did Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s vision for Canadian sovereignty shape the patriation process, how did his vision differ from previous prime ministers?

b)How did The Road to Patriation portray the relationships and dynamics between key political figures, such as Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, and the provincial premiers, and how did these relationships influence the outcome of the negotiations? What role do you think public opinion and media coverage played during the patriation process?

c) Who was excluded from the formal patriation negotiations and how did that exclusion impact the process? Were the consequences of their absence in the final Constitution Act of 1982?

# data[].attributes.body
Most policy analysts neglect to take into consideration the role of the courts in shaping public policy outcomes. Based on Ian Greene’s Public Policy and the Courts, how do judicial decisions influence policy formulation and implementation? Should policy analysts integrate judicial review into their assessments, and if so, how can they effectively account for the courts' impact on policy dynamics? What are the challenges associated with this? Discuss with examples from recent cases where courts significantly altered policy directions.