completed marking all the essays: Explain how the Charter works: Refer to section 24 (standing) and section 1 (judicial review of alleged rights violations and determination of 'reasonable limits'), and explain how this process has changed the approach of our courts to rights violations and has led to more robust protection of rights. Explain the Notwithstanding clause: What recourse is available to government where it disagrees with the court's section 1 review of the appropriate balance between rights and public interests, eg., if there is unwillingness by government to amend the law struck down by the court, or its appeals of the decision to higher courts are unsuccessful, in what circumstances can it resort to section 33? Briefly survey the constitutional debate: Whether the Charter improves Canada's laws, or expands the influence of appointed judges over public policies in negative ways at the expense of democratically- elected legislators. Your Assessment/Answer: In your view, based on your analysis of above issues, who should have the final say, judges or legislators? Or, do you think this typically Canadian compromise strikes a good balance between parliamentary supremacy and effective rights protections through our courts