| [Legal Question] Election of the Local Council |
|
Seems good to me. Hopo what do you think?
Apad
King of Haldilwe
I was thinking back to the wording of the Charter which states under Article 4, Section 1 that "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." Given what we are doing I was wondering if there is any merit for the purposes of certainty in citing the power we are using?
I'm also suggesting that the recommendation at (3) needs to be removed because The Assembly as far as I can see has no power to appoint/reaffirm the Local Councillors. We'd have to have a special election if anyone is disqualified as a result of this decision (hopefully no one is) as the vacancy would occur in July, which isn't in the month preceding the election (which as per a recent question we know to mean the whole month of August!). (07-28-2015, 01:34 AM)TAC Saxton Wrote: Thoughts? Corrections to poor spelling or grammar?
Hopo, i gotta say you better run for justice in the coming elections, i plan on nominating you the moment it opens. You really are great for this job and have a very thoughtful mind.
This is much better ruling. i only see one error in the first sentence of the second paragraph, after the first coma.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
To my mind the hardest job is always in starting the draft, so huge thanks to TAC for putting something down to mull over!! I always find it easier to think once I'm looking at something on screen.
As for the coming elections, I hope you and TAC are going to stand as well. I think you've both done excellent jobs and I'd like to see TAC continue as Chief Justice. I wasn't contemplating standing until the December elections but... I have been thinking about it since Tsu asked me if I'd consider staying on until the elections and will probably run.
I agree, i really hope TAC runs again and i would be happy to see him continue as chief justice. I plan on standing for reelection, i am enjoying the position.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
The revised ruling is fine with me.
HCLQ1515
July 28th, 2015
Petitioner
Kris Kringle
Presiding Justices
Hopolis, Hileville, TAC
Non-Presiding Justice
Apad
Question: Does Article 8.1.1 of The Charter contradict Article 2.11 of The Charter? Majority Opinion
Hopolis, Hileville, TAC
The Court has unanimously agreed that in its opinion, Article 8.1.1 of the Charter of the Coalition of The South Pacific
Quote:Three residents of The South Pacific shall serve on the Local Council does contradict the provisions of Article 2.11 Quote:Voting and being elected to an office under the Coalition of The South Pacific shall be rights afforded only to citizens In reaching this decision the Court recognizes that in keeping with the provisions of Article 4.1.4 of the Charter: Quote: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. It is the unanimous opinion of the High Court that the Bill of Rights, by its very nature, is considered to have greater precedence among the articles of The Charter and therefore the Court finds that the recent amendment to Article 8.1.1 of The Charter be declared defunct and consequently, stricken from The Charter with immediate effect. While this decision does not stop the operations of the Local Council, it does mean that all Councillors serving on the Local Council must be citizens of The South Pacific and that any non-citizen currently holding the position of Local Councillor be immediately disqualified from holding that position on the grounds of failing to meet the qualification criteria. However, as far as the Court is aware, the two current Local Councillors are Darkstrait and Ryccia who are both citizens and therefore as long as they do not resign, undergo a successful recall, or no longer hold citizenship they should continue to serve as Councillors on the Local Council for the remainder of their term of appointment. In reaching this decision we are mindful that it was the intention of the Assembly to create a body (the Local Council) that has representatives based on the qualification criteria of residency in The South Pacific rather than citizenship. Therefore, the Court also recommends: 1.) That the Assembly, as a matter of urgency, should seek to ratify an amendment to Article 2.11 of The Charter to exclude the Local Council from the citizenship requirement.
2.) That the Assembly should ratify legislation to reinstate Article 8.1.1 of The Charter upon passage of the previous recommendation. I fixed the grammar/spelling errors, removed the sections that Hopolis struck from the previous draft and cleaned up the references to The Charter. I changed many instances where the word "should" is used, as this is an official ruling and should be, more or less, ironclad.
Sounds good to me.
Looks good to me.
Apad
King of Haldilwe |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |