SUPREME COURT: New Fanatica Constitution


HoF Quattromaster
Hall of Fame Staff
Retired Moderator
Jan 1, 2005
This is not a federal bill there for it does not fall under the federal constitution.

This falls under NF organizing its government.

After further consideration I don't believe the proposed New Fanatica Constitution falls under the purvey of Section 5 "Voting" of our Constitution. The question than becomes, does it fall under Article VI: Special Bills?

Section 1
A special bill is a bill that is not counted for endorsement purposes.
Section 2
These include, but are not limited to: ratification of treaties, constitutional amendments, changes to national symbols, policy ratification, votes of no confidence, Impeachment of SC judges, and Declarations of War.

By the above statements, I believe the "New Fanatica Constitution" does indeed fall under Special Bills. The question than becomes, do Special Bills still fall under the same requirements, othat than those stated otherwise, that a federal bill does? As stated in Section 1 of Article VI, endorsements are not required, therefore I am of the belief that Special Bills must follow all statements in Section V that have not been expanded on, clarified, restated, or in any way been re-adressed in Section VI.

I bring this before the Supreme Court, for further discussion and clarification. My fellow Justices, what is your legal opinion on this issue?
Well, I'm not sure that this is even covered by the constitution, as the New Fanatica Constitution is a provincial document, and therefore isn't subject to the federal constitution. However, if it was, it would be a special bill.
It is a provincial document. Not federal.
It is a provincial document. Not federal.

Are you saying that provincial documents do not have to follow federal laws? If something is legal by provincial standings, yet is illegal by federal, than it is still illegal.

Also realize that there is no legal statements stating there is a difference between the two. At least not that I'm aware of.
Legal tradition in Western, Liberal Democracies often supports federal supremacy.
When the states have too much power, bad things happen. Essentially that was the cause of the US Civil War, and the reason that Canada is the exact opposite of the US.

In the US, a-19 are federal, the rest is states

In Canada a-2 is provincial, everything else is federal

(45 and 28 respectively are completely random numbers)
I would classify the provincial constitution under Special Bills, seeing that it is a semi-constitutional amendment, though it only applies to New Fanatica.
Article 4: The Provinces

Section 1
Civilitas consists of 4 Provinces.

Section 2
The inhabitants of each province shall create a constitution, laws, rules, and regulations for themselves, until they create their own constitution they will follow the National constitution as their state constitution. Provinces are divided themselves into districts, which are delegated powers by the provincial government.

Section 3
Federal law (including the federal Constitution) supersedes Provinces laws and constitutions.

After further study I have come to the conclusion that Methos is both right and wrong.

He is right that it is a special bill.

He is wrong that it falls under the federal constitution.
The constitution says that until provincial constitutions are drafted the provinces will operate under the federal 1.

So under the current New Fanatican Constitution Methos is right.
It is a provincial special bill.
There is no NF SC atm to rule on this atm, but since it is so clear I will just do the proper process.
Hehe, how did I miss Article IV? :blush:

The constitution says that until provincial constitutions are drafted the provinces will operate under the federal 1.

I agree with this, but you might wish to look at Section III:

Our Constitution said:
Section 3
Federal law (including the federal Constitution) supersedes Provinces laws and constitutions.

The New Fanatica Constitution still falls under the hand of the federal Constitution, assuming it passes.

Either way, the question still arises, do special bills still have to use the same standards that bills do? In my opinion yes, they do, at least by how the current Constitution is written. Until the NFC passes, it still falls under the federal version of the Constitution.

I'm curious how the other Justices see this.
Yes, Special Bills are pretty much like normal bills, except for the endorsements thing.
Top Bottom