(05-02-2016, 07:46 PM)Omega Wrote:

(05-02-2016, 07:30 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why can the High court not declare a Constitutional Law void if it violates the charter but can declare a General Law void if it violates the charter?

The Charter defines the constitutional laws. So if the High Court were to declare a constitutional law void, then against what reference frame would it do that?

What the High Court can explicitly do is resolve conflicts in constitutional law (VIII.5).

(05-02-2016, 06:15 PM)Omega Wrote: Why is it that the provisions for election would be put into a general law and not into a constitutional law?

What would be the benefit of having it in constitutional law vs. general law?

Okay I'm missing something here. What is the point of having 2 different tiers of laws?

Generally speaking "constitutional/higher" tier laws deal with fundamental/structural elements, like the different branches and powers of the government, the bill of rights, etc, and require a higher threshold to alter. "Normal/lower" tier laws deal with the specifics of what is mandated by the first tier, as well as less important topics like regional holidays. The first is for things that should be hard to change, and that broad consensus is required on, whilst the second is stuff that can be changed by a simple minority. We don't want 51% of the region eliminating something the other 49% considers to be fundamental/vital.