(11-04-2019, 01:42 PM)Nakari Wrote:

(11-04-2019, 10:48 AM)Belschaft Wrote:

(11-04-2019, 07:50 AM)Nakari Wrote: Note: the majority requirement has raised to 60%, as repealing this law would involve rescinding a Prohibited Group designation, which requires a 60% majority.

Honourable Chair,

Article 1.4 of the Legislative Procedure Act states that “General laws, amendments, resolutions, and treaties require a simple majority of those voting to pass” whilst only “Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, and resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass”. The Criminal Code is not marked as a Constitutional Law as specified by Article 1.1 of the Charter, and as such is a General Law. In this matter the law is thus clear that a simple majority of those voting is the necessary threshold for amendment, and this decision is thus extremely questionable.

I would respectively ask what law, precedent or court ruling you considered when reaching this decision. 

Repealing this section of law essentially takes two actions: it repeals the relevant sections of law, but also rescinds the designation of a proscribed group. One requires 50% majority, the other 60%.

When we have passed omnibus law packages that encompass both constitutional and general laws, the precedent is to use the higher requirement to determine the required majority (with the consequence that some amendments to general laws have required more than a simple majority). I followed this precedent here, and chose the higher required majority.

If this vote reaches between 50% and 60% majority, I am happy to leave the ultimate determination to a Legal Question.

Chair,

With all due respect to your position, the precedent you refer to - that when passing an omnibus bill including both Constitutional Laws and General Laws the higher threshold is used - has no relation to this matter, as it relates to bills effecting both Constitutional and General Laws. The Criminal Code is a General Law in its entirety.

Article 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act (LPA) details the powers of your office, including discretionary powers, but at no place in our laws is the Chair granted the power to assign certain matters voting thresholds different to those explicitly defined by Article 1.4 of the LPA.

As such your action here is in clear violation of Article 1.4 of the LPA and thus unlawful. Regardless of the passage of this specific amendment, your action would establish a precedent directly contrary to Article 1.4 of the LPA. As such, and unless you are willing to acknowledge your error and revoke this unlawful action, I will be seeking immediate redress from the Courts.