I would assume so. But with that in mind, fraud would have to be proven in order to nullify it…which means he may have to wait for her to be convicted before that can happen. I have no doubt he won’t be on the hook for anything in the end, but I imagine it isn’t as simple as just getting it annulled. Even a regular annulment can be contested, and fought in court. This would probably end up being even more complicated.
Ok. So, what does the law say about trying to legally annul a marriage based on fraud? Because I would assume this is a pretty rare case, that doesn’t have a lot of case-law to fall back on.
They also said he’s going through quite a process to fix the situation…so he may still end up with some baggage to deal with.
There’s actually a video out there of him talking to a room full of people about this exact thing. He 100% endorses this theory.
Just waiting for RFK jr to revoke this approval on the basis that it can’t prevent gay people from doing poppers, so it must not work.
This is just what’s called the “common core method”. It’s now the preferred method of teaching math in many Western countries.
I’m confused. Does she want him to stop with his plans to expand extraction and exports?
They can try all they want. If it violates the Charter, it will never get past the debate stage before getting scrapped. There’s no point in passing legislation that will just get thrown out the first time it goes to court.
You don’t have to worry. There are already legal advocacy groups preparing to challenge it. It will never make it to a vote.
If it violates the Canadian Charter, then it won’t pass the debate stage, which means it won’t even make it to a vote.
This will never pass.
There’s also a certain element of “You can’t tell me what to do!”…followed by doing something incredibly stupid and self-destructive, just to “own the Libs”.
This is yet another astroturfed conservative movement. This whole topic is only supported by a very small number of people, yet it’s being amplified in the media in order to make it seem like a big deal. It isn’t.
They already signed that contract. This is just Israel attacking them anyway.
This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn’t so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense…even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained.
Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding.
The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a “qualitative military edge” against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives.
Well, that’s awfully vague.
Maybe they aren’t including the time spent scrolling. It’s just the sphincter flexing moments that count.
Imagine getting fired as a journalist for simply stating an objective fact.
Then I hope the rest of the world does something about it.