| [LEGAL QUESTION]Competing legislation |
|
We should probably get some kimd of response together soon. Personally here I'm inclined to consider this a matter of the discretion of the assembly and the Chair.
I'm going to use Unibot's question as the basis of this judgement, since Unibot and Arbs seem to be asking the same question, but Uni's has more substantiation and clarity.
1a. In the event that two resolutions are passed that contradict with one another - how should these resolutions be enforced by the government? Charter, Article 4, Section 1.4 4. The High Court may declare any whole General Law, or portions within such law, that conflict with the Charter defunct, and to reconcile contradictions within the Charter. 3. In the absence of new policies or laws, is the Chair of the Assembly legally obligated to place the contradicting resolution to vote? Charter, Article 3, Section 1.10 10. Proposed legislation may be moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged. Charter, Article 3, Section 2.1 1. The Assembly will elect a Chair which will be responsible for the administration of all aspects of the drafting, debate, and passage of legislation. I'm inclined to say that while discussion may be entertained, wherein conflicts may arise due to contradictions where both laws are passed, it should require the opinion of these Courts to be resolved. However, the language of the Charter is rather permissive, using the word 'may', instead of other imperatives, which suggests that the Chair has discretion to whether or not he wishes to bring both resolutions to vote
I agree with your point about 1a. If the Assembly passes two pieces of legislation that are contradicting, it falls to the Courts to reconcile said contradiction. Any time there is legislation that contradicts another piece of Law, it falls to the Courts to resolve that issue.
Here's a thing about the Charter language, and use of "may". Let's use the CoA as an example. As you quoted, the Chair is responsible for all aspects of drafting, debating, and passing law. That means the Chair has an obligation to make it so that any piece of legislation can pass.... not possible if you don't put something up to vote that has been motioned, and seconded. So "may" is more like giving permission, not like saying "you can if you want". It's saying, once proposed legislation has received a Motion and a Second, then you may (are now allowed to) move it to a vote. This is also why we have recalls. If the CoA were to use their personal discretion as to what gets actually moved to a vote after a motion and a second, as opposed to doing it with every piece of Legislation (which is their moral and legal obligation, they would very quickly get recalled by the very Assembly that elected them. Checks and balances.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
I more or less agree with you. If Far doesn't have opinions to the contrary, I don't mind helping draft the judgement text
HCLQ1407
- 14.11.14 -
Petitioner
Unibot, Arbiter08
Presiding Justices
Awe, Farengeto, Gustave Berr
Non-Presiding Justice
Llamas
"1. Can two resolutions on the same subject (of contradicting nature) be entertained and passed by The Assembly? 1a. In the event that two resolutions are passed that contradict with one another - how should these resolutions be enforced by the government? 1b. Could an executive policy clarify which resolution shall be recognized and which will not be officially recognized? 2. Can executive policy legislate a prohibition of contradictory resolutions? Requiring the repeal of the former resolution before the passage of the new one. 3. In the absence of new policies or laws, is the Chair of the Assembly legally obligated to place the contradicting resolution to vote?" Majority Opinion
Awe, Farengeto, Gustave Berr
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Unibot and Arbiter08. The Court will use Unibot's question as the basis of this judgement, since Unibot and Arbiter08 questions are of an identical nature, but Unibot's offers more substantiation and clarity. It is in the opinion of the Court that discussion may be entertained, and wherein conflicts may arise due to contradictions where both laws are passed, it should require the legal opinion of the High Court to be resolved, as stipulated below by Article 4, Section 1.4 of the Charter Quote:4. The High Court may declare any whole General Law, or portions within such law, that conflict with the Charter defunct, and to reconcile contradictions within the Charter. As such, the law takes precedence over executive policy where it is present, and a Legal Question should be submitted to determine if laws are contradictory. Furthermore, this Court rules that In the absence of new policies or laws, is the Chair of the Assembly is legally obligated to place all legislation, having been motioned and seconded, to vote. While the Court notes that Article 3, Section 1.10 of the Charter states: Quote:10. Proposed legislation may be moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged. It is in the Court’s opinion that the use of the word ‘may’ is only an implication that the Chair of the Assembly, in the execution of his duties, is allowed to put legislation that has been motioned and seconded to vote. The use of the word ‘may’ in this context does not permit the Chair of the Assembly to move legislation to vote at his discretion. In addition, as stipulated by Article 3, Section 2.1 of the Charter: Quote:1. The Assembly will elect a Chair which will be responsible for the administration of all aspects of the drafting, debate, and passage of legislation. As the Chair is responsible for the passage of legislation, in this case contradictory or otherwise, personal discretion or executive policy should not apply as this may obstruct the passage of legislation, thus preventing the Chair from fulfilling legal obligations in the discharge and execution of his duties. Should further clarification be required, the petitioners are welcome to submit an appeal to the High Court, which will be presided by the non-presiding Justice, or submit legislation in the Assembly that will clarify this matter
While I believe this matter should be handled by discr the chair, under the current charter I find this response appropriate.
Awesome. I am just going to make some edits to this post, and then I will post it as an official response to the legal question(s). Good work, Awe!!
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
Awesome! Next up: retroactive denials of appeal
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |