| On Designation of Constitutional Laws |
|
Hounourable Justice,
My question is to the Court: Is legislation containing a provision for it to be designated constitutional law subjected to the same voting time and threshold as constitutional law itself? I ask this question as a result of this amendment, Article 6.1 of which designates it to be constitutional law. Article IV, Section 6 of the Charter, in its most recent amendment, states the following Quote:6. All general laws, resolutions, and treaty ratifications must be passed by a simple majority of those voting. Laws marked as constitutional laws, or resolutions that deal with issues found in constitutional laws, require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass. Appointments, unless otherwise specified, require a simple majority of those voting. Votes are held for a minimum of 3 days, except for votes on constitutional law which are held for a minimum of 5 days. Hence, if a designation for legislation to be marked constitutional law is regarded as such, it will have a five-day voting period and require a 75% threshold to pass, whereas if it were to be regarded as general law, it will have a three-day voting period and require a 50%+1 majority to pass. I'd appreciate if the Court could render a judgment on this matter at its earliest convenience. Thank you.
Your Honor,
if it pleases the court, I wish to submit this opinion as amicus curiae. Charter IV.6 sets the parameters for voting based on whether the law to be voted on is "marked" as constitutional or not. Neither this provision of the charter, any other provision or the charter, or relevant legal precedent, changes any voting parameters of a bill to be passed based on contingencies of its future. Doing so would introduce a dangerous paradox - if the parameters for passing a bill into law are based on the "marking" that the law would have after successful passage, but the bill subsequently fails to pass, then the voting parameters would have been gathered from a "marking" that the law never had, thereby rendering the vote illegal. As such, the only reasonable interpretation is that the voting parameters are based on the "marking" of the law to be voted on before such a vote takes place, irrespective of its contents. I thank you for your time. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
HCLQ1606
June 11th, 2016
Petitioner
Awe
Presiding Justice
Feirmont
Hounourable Justice, My question is to the Court: Is legislation containing a provision for it to be designated constitutional law subjected to the same voting time and threshold as constitutional law itself? I ask this question as a result of this amendment, Article 6.1 of which designates it to be constitutional law. Article IV, Section 6 of the Charter, in its most recent amendment, states the following Quote:6. All general laws, resolutions, and treaty ratifications must be passed by a simple majority of those voting. Laws marked as constitutional laws, or resolutions that deal with issues found in constitutional laws, require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass. Appointments, unless otherwise specified, require a simple majority of those voting. Votes are held for a minimum of 3 days, except for votes on constitutional law which are held for a minimum of 5 days. Hence, if a designation for legislation to be marked constitutional law is regarded as such, it will have a five-day voting period and require a 75% threshold to pass, whereas if it were to be regarded as general law, it will have a three-day voting period and require a 50%+1 majority to pass. I'd appreciate if the Court could render a judgment on this matter at its earliest convenience. Thank you. Ruling
The wording in the Charter, relevant items as indicated in italics: The Charter of the South Pacific Wrote:IV. THE ASSEMBLY The wording here is interpreted by the Court as ‘Currently Marked’ as opposed to ‘Going to Be Marked’. When a new piece of legislation is brought forward to the Assembly, the ‘marking’ of the law is worded within the creation of the new law and voted on as such. As the amendment in question is already marked as a Regular law, it should be treated as a regular law until the amendment passes or fails, then re-marked appropriately. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |