| Legal Question: Contradicting Resolutions |
|
We have a situation where one legislator wishes to pursue a resolution on a subject that already has a resolution detailing the Assembly's beliefs on the subject.
The resolution, in question, conflicts with the alternative resolution. Passing the legislation would mean TSP holds a contradictory stance on an issue. Noting, First, there appears to be no legislation on the subject of the contradiction of bills or resolutions (except in regards to The Charter). And, Secondly, Section 3, Article 1 .10 is not coercive: "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". And, Lastly, Article 6, Section 1.6 states "The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law". I ask the High Court the following questions, 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? I request Chief Justice Belschaft recuse himself from the decision, since he has already spoken on the matter and is central to the issue. Yours, Unibot. Chair of the Assembly.
The High Court will hear this question. A decision in regards to the recusal request will be reached before the substantive issues are discussed. This may take a while due to the number of questions, so anyone so inclined feel free to take your time with submitting amicus briefs.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
If the court will entertain an amicus brief from a non-citizen, several of the points raised seem clear to me on the basis of the legislation quoted; and based on my prior experience as a Judge and Minister of Justice elsewhere, I have attempted answers to the remainder.
1. Can two resolutions on the same subject (of contradicting nature) be entertained and passed by The Assembly? - It was stated that no law exists to prevent this, therefore it is legal. Problematic, possibly, but legal. 1a. In the event that two resolutions are passed that contradict with one another - how should these resolutions be enforced by the government? - This is the heart of the matter, and AFAIK is not explicitly covered by existing provisions. The normal practice elsewhere is first to seek a resolution which fits both resolutions, failing which the more recent would take priority. 1b. Could an executive policy clarify which resolution shall be recognized and which will not be officially recognized? - No. Executive orders are allowed where no law exists, which is not the case here. 2. Can executive policy legislate a prohibition of contradictory resolutions? Requiring the repeal of the former resolution before the passage of the new one. - A difficult area. My belief is that Executive orders were intended to allow for the clarification of administrative processes, not to control the conduct of the Assembly. Even if such an order were deemed legal, I think the region would be better served by proper legislative or constitutional consideration of the matter. 3. In the absence of new policies or laws, is the Chair of the Assembly legally obligated to place the contradicting resolution to vote? - If I recall correctly, the court considered this previously. As I understand it, the term may is used advisedly - the Chair is under no obligation whatsoever to move a resolution to a vote. The only sanction for an abuse of this power would be to recall the chair.
Strolling punster from Canada
Eat o' teh eye pie is teh one!
First member and Procrastinator in Chief of the ice creamists movementQuote:1b. Could an executive policy clarify which resolution shall be recognized and which will not be officially recognized? It's how ever you look at it: there are no laws on the interpretation of conflicting resolutions.
A rather more practical approach might be for the new legislation to explicitly repeal the conflicting parts of the old. That would also help to clarify what people were voting for.
That goes beyond the remit of the court, though.
Strolling punster from Canada
Eat o' teh eye pie is teh one!
First member and Procrastinator in Chief of the ice creamists movement
HCLQ1407
- 14.11.14 -
Petitioners
Unibot, Arbiter08
Presiding Justices
Awe, Farengeto, Gustave Berr
Non-Presiding Justice
Llamas
From Unibot:
"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?" From Arbiter08:
"Should two drafts regarding the same section of a legal document (Charter, Code of Laws, Assembly Resolution, ect.) be motioned to vote and seconded before either is put up to a vote, how should the Chair and the Assembly proceed to handle it?" Majority Opinion
Awe, Farengeto, Gustave Berr
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Questions submitted by Unibot and Arbiter08. The Court will use Unibot's question as the basis of this judgement, since the 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, the Chair of the Assembly is legally obligated to place all legislation, having been motioned and seconded, to vote, regardless of contradictions. 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. The High Court believes the Chair may use personal discretion when deciding the order in which resolutions or pieces of legislation, conflicting or otherwise, are put to a vote, but it is the legal responsibility of the Chair to put to vote any resolution or piece of legislation that receives a Motion and a Second. 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 further.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
Yikes, what a devastating blow to constitutional law in TSP. It basically upheavals how we've always interpreted the Charter previously and leaves the state of contradictory law in even more uncertainty than when we started.
Furthermore, the Court is not empowered to reconcile conflicting laws - "to reconcile contradictions within the Charter". You are only allowed to strike down laws that contradict the Charter. With no-one empowered to reconcile contradicting laws, it's possible that the state of rule of law in TSP could be totally undermined with one law saying one thing and another saying an entirely different thing if both laws were to be passed.
(11-14-2014, 04:14 PM)Unibot Wrote: Yikes, what a devastating blow to constitutional law in TSP. It basically upheavals how we've always interpreted the Charter previously and leaves the state of contradictory law in even more uncertainty than when we started. I recommend the Assembly take this opportunity to pass legislation to address this concern.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Indeed. This is a rather.... strange ruling that is not exactly supported by a textual reading.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I can't remember who, but someone suggested holding a vote to determine which of the conflicting resolutions should go forward in the process. This sounds like a reasonable and apt solution to the problem.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |