| Legal Question on Constitutional Laws |
|
Article 1 Section 2 of the Charter states that "Constitutional laws hold precedence and supremacy over all other laws, regulations, and policies of all branches of government."
However Article 8 Section 5 States that " The High Court may reconcile contradictions within the Charter, constitutional laws, and general laws, maintaining the least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory parts." Under these provisions would it be interpreted that should 2 Constitutional Laws be in contradiction the High Court would not be able to reconcile the contradictions because the High Court Regulation/Order could not take supremacy over the Constitutional Law? Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
The High Court is explicitly granted the power to do so. Decisions of the High Court aren't laws taking supremacy over anything. They're the official interpretation of what our laws mean.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk HCLQ1605
June 11th, 2016
Petitioner
Omega
Presiding Justice
Feirmont
Article 1 Section 2 of the Charter states that "Constitutional laws hold precedence and supremacy over all other laws, regulations, and policies of all branches of government." However Article 8 Section 5 States that " The High Court may reconcile contradictions within the Charter, constitutional laws, and general laws, maintaining the least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory parts." Under these provisions would it be interpreted that should 2 Constitutional Laws be in contradiction the High Court would not be able to reconcile the contradictions because the High Court Regulation/Order could not take supremacy over the Constitutional Law? Opinion
The High Court’s Legal Question procedure is not to overwrite laws, but to interpret them. The Ruling/Opinion on any Legal Question does not create a new law. The “reconcile contradictions within the Charter, constitutional laws, and general laws” is merely an interpretation. Should two Constitutional Laws be in contradiction, it would be ruled as such and moved to the Assembly for further debate. Should a contradiction in the laws cause a disruption in proceedings in any area of the South Pacific, it would be interpreted as per the Charter wordings (found below in italics): The Charter of the South Pacific Wrote:VIII. THE HIGH COURT |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Previous Positions| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |