| [PASSED] A1906.01: Amendment to Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Charter |
|
When reading through the Charter today, I noticed that the Charter states both Cabinet and Delegate elections procedures "will be set by the Assembly in a general law."1 This is problematic as our Elections Act is a constitutional law, and is therefore not a general law.2
I also noticed the Charter requires that procedures for judicial appointment and trials "will be defined in a general law by the Assembly."3 This isn't a problem as our Judicial Act is a general law, not a constitutional one. However, if we change the constitutionality in the future we might forget about this provision. Since there seems to be no real reason why the Charter specifies the requirements for a general law in these cases, I propose striking the word "general" from the aforementioned quotes. A formal amendment structure has been provided below. Ultimately, I imagine this should be fairly straight forward since it is really just about cleaning up an inconsistency within our legislation. However, if anyone has problems with the proposal please let me know  Notes: 1. See Article VI, Section 6 and Article VII, Section 5 of the Charter, respectively. 2. In Precedence of the Laws (HCLQ1803), the Court found that "All non-constitutional laws fall into a single category of general laws." 3. See Article VIII, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter, respectively. Quote:
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
Oh, what an excellent spot! Full support!!!
Id prefer changing the phrase "general law" to "separate law". This way, its specified that it is not in the Charter elsewhere.
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium (06-13-2019, 09:49 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Id prefer changing the phrase "general law" to "separate law". This way, its specified that it is not in the Charter elsewhere. In RL constitutions, they often write it as "in an Act of Congress" or "in an Act of Parliament" so I don't think it should be a problem. ![[Image: VCUpXJI.png1]](https://imgur.com/VCUpXJI.png1) BZERNELEG
South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.
Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy
Well hey I like this and good job finding it so GG. I approve it 100%
(06-13-2019, 09:49 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Id prefer changing the phrase "general law" to "separate law". This way, its specified that it is not in the Charter elsewhere. I agree that such laws shouldn't be put in the Charter. Indeed, the Charter (Article XIII, Section 1) already has a requirement that "amendments to the Charter must [...] must be constitutional in nature [... and] address the structure or framework of government." In view of this, I believe your concern has already been addressed by the Charter itself. While I feel it is unnecessary, I am happy to change the proposal wording if you really want; just let me know
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
Yep. Agreed.
Aga/Eunopiar
Mostly does boring things.
I motion that this proposal be voted upon
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
I second.
I third.
The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |