  Debate Aren't you supposed to attack the front-runner in a debate? Why are the loudest voices I'm hearing tonight coming from urlLink #2 and urlLink #3 in the polls? You know, urlLink the Notwithstanding Clause is one of the most potentially dangerous, contentious tools that the Canadian Government has in it's drawer. It provides parliament to overturn a supreme court decision and impose the will of a 3 or 4 year government on the Constitution or the Charter. Why is Stephen Harper talking about when he will and when he won't use the clause? I'm really torn here. I mean, I'd like to know if I'm going to help elect a guy who'll attempt to use the Notwithstanding Clause at the drop of a hat. I'd like to know the leader's position on using the Clause but if a party is talking about using it at THIS stage of the game and not after a Supreme Court decision or public debate, I'm really afraid of that kind of abuse of power.
Waving the Notwithstanding Clause in front of the Supreme Court and in front of the issue and debate itself, regardless of the issue, is playing a dirty game with the Constitution. We've got a Supreme Court to interpret and answer questions that Parliament poses to it. If our new Prime Minister is going to flaunt this Clause to overturn their decisions, then why bother having a Court at all? 
