[Majromax]

> Basically, imagine if states could pass temporary laws that were not allowed to be challenged as unconstitutional. For some reason, Canada allows that.

One argument in favour is that it preserves the ability to pass emergency acts without contorting the definition of 'rights'.

As a negative example, look at current US rhetoric regarding a "national emergency" over immigration. That is being used to justify acts that might under other circumstances be unconstitutional, but the only way the courts can allow it is to also allow broad, ad-hoc "national security" exceptions to constitutional rights.

If the US had something similar to the notwithstanding clause, the line of authority would be much clearer. An act that would otherwise be unconstitutional can still pass and become effective if the elected government certifies the need, on a temporary basis.

While this clause (and similar language in s.1 of the Charter, which states that rights are guaranteed to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.") ostensibly weakens the strength of rights in Canada, I believe that this presence invites courts to paradoxically take a stronger view of rights on a day-to-day basis. In particular, they're much more likely to truly inquire whether government actions are reasonable.