Law Proposal 1: Law Regulation [now with poll]

[Epimethius]

A law is a mentioned in the constitution, but is never defined. As such, a law is any regulation, passed legally by the people under the constitution, that does not amend it or add to it itself (i.e. is not an amendement or aditional article). All the constitution has to say about laws is that they can exist, and that they are to be upheld by the justices. Elsewhere, I believe it says that the Judicial must review all laws, amendments, or articles. Beyond that the constitution says absolutely nothing about laws. Which is why I wrote this. Laws would not be amendments, because that is the entire point of them, that they are not amendments. Were they amendments, they would not be in a seperate "book" from the constitution themselves. Logically, therefore, neither this law nor any other needs a discussion topic.

Lower books are no where mentioned in this constitution, and currently do not exist. Were they to exist they would not be part of the constitution but rather below it, otherwise they could not be disqualified on the grounds of being unconstitutional, as they are the constitution. Not to mention that were they part of the constitution they would not be seperate or lower in the first place.

 

[Comnenus]

I believe it says that the Judicial must review all laws, amendments, or articles.

I think this is wherein the problem lies. In order for a law to go to a poll, it needs to have Judicial Review. Judicial Review follows a discussion period. The Chief Justice has the right to set Judicial Procedures, and if you check the beginning of the Judicial thread you can find them posted.

Laws would not be amendments, because that is the entire point of them, that they are not amendments. Were they amendments, they would not be in a seperate "book" from the constitution themselves. Logically, therefore, neither this law nor any other needs a discussion topic.

While it might seem logical to you, Judicial Procedure has been set forth for the review of legislation. Your argument ignores this, and is therefore flawed.

Lower books are no where mentioned in this constitution, and currently do not exist. Were they to exist they would not be part of the constitution but rather below it, otherwise they could not be disqualified on the grounds of being unconstitutional, as they are the constitution. Not to mention that were they part of the constitution they would not be seperate or lower in the first place.

Lower books of law are implied in the Constitution when it refers to lower law. The Constitution by nature does not state everything outright. If it did, there wouldn't be much need for Justices or Judicial Review. Secondly, even Articles of the Constitution could concievably be ruled unconstitutional if they were found to be in violation of other sections of the Constitution, although that would only happen in rare circumstances.

 

[DaveShack]

Ratificaton of this proposed law has failed, however that does not necessarily mean it is dead. We just need to fix what was wrong with it.

A discussion on this law proposal has been started here