|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 1, 2019 21:29:38 GMT -6
I guess I don't understand what you mean. The Ziu can't pass a law on anything that doesn't concern those issues. To the extent that a law passed by the Ziu is about something else, then that law is inorganic. I've always took the list of 17.6 to only ever apply in terms of how a law might affect a province; it falls under the article heading of Territorial Subdivisions. The list of 17.6, to me, doesn't mean the Ziu can't a pass a law on anything that doesn't concern those issues EVER, rather the Ziu has a reserved authority over the provinces on these particular issues and can only pass laws that don't concern that list when it doesn't directly affect a province. This seems nearly identical to the devolution settlement in the UK. (We can't actually get away with calling it devolution in Talossa though, because the definition of devolution is that the national government has devolved powers to a sub-national authority, which is not the case in Talossa, rather powers are granted to both the national and sub-national authorities by the Organic Law. This can be still be considered de jure devolution though.) The key question then is if the Ziu passes a national law on an issue that is not covered by 17.6 and that law doesn't contradict any existing provincial laws then does the national law still stand? The next question would have to be if that national law only conflicted with the laws of some of the provinces, not all of the provinces, would the national law stand in the provinces without a conflict. I argue the answer to both is yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 1, 2019 21:31:20 GMT -6
... inasmuch as the law would contradict Vuode's law, its invalid. But a province that delegates their senate elections to the Chancery cannot set limitation on it, so the Ziu's act would void the provincial law. It's a "take it or leave it" approach. I think this is pretty much what I'm trying to say, but not making a clear enough argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 1, 2019 21:46:56 GMT -6
The key question then is if the Ziu passes a national law on an issue that is not covered by 17.6 and that law doesn't contradict any existing provincial laws then does the national law still stand? The next question would have to be if that national law only conflicted with the laws of some of the provinces, not all of the provinces, would the national law stand in the provinces without a conflict. I argue the answer to both is yes. A law of the Ziu governing an issue that the Ziu is not empowered to govern would not stand at all, regardless of provincial issues. A challenger could ignore it and -- if action was taken against them -- challenge the law in cort. The Ziu isn't supposed to make laws on stuff not under their purview, since all powers not reserved to the Ziu belong to the provinces. |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 1, 2019 23:55:42 GMT -6
The key question then is if the Ziu passes a national law on an issue that is not covered by 17.6 and that law doesn't contradict any existing provincial laws then does the national law still stand? The next question would have to be if that national law only conflicted with the laws of some of the provinces, not all of the provinces, would the national law stand in the provinces without a conflict. I argue the answer to both is yes. A law of the Ziu governing an issue that the Ziu is not empowered to govern would not stand at all, regardless of provincial issues. A challenger could ignore it and -- if action was taken against them -- challenge the law in cort. The Ziu isn't supposed to make laws on stuff not under their purview, since all powers not reserved to the Ziu belong to the provinces. Surely, though, the Ziu is empowered to pass any law it likes up to the point of acting Inorganically? Is the concept of parliamentary supremacy entirely foreign to Talossa? |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 2, 2019 8:12:51 GMT -6
A law of the Ziu governing an issue that the Ziu is not empowered to govern would not stand at all, regardless of provincial issues. A challenger could ignore it and -- if action was taken against them -- challenge the law in cort. The Ziu isn't supposed to make laws on stuff not under their purview, since all powers not reserved to the Ziu belong to the provinces. Surely, though, the Ziu is empowered to pass any law it likes up to the point of acting Inorganically? Is the concept of parliamentary supremacy entirely foreign to Talossa? I mean, I could be badly mistaken, but it seems to me that the Ziu is not permitted to pass laws outside of the powers delegated to it, since all other powers are reserved exclusively to the provinces. The king has pointed out before how funny this is, since it's an amusing blend of British and American systems. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Mar 2, 2019 8:57:44 GMT -6
A law of the Ziu governing an issue that the Ziu is not empowered to govern would not stand at all, regardless of provincial issues. A challenger could ignore it and -- if action was taken against them -- challenge the law in cort. The Ziu isn't supposed to make laws on stuff not under their purview, since all powers not reserved to the Ziu belong to the provinces. Surely, though, the Ziu is empowered to pass any law it likes up to the point of acting Inorganically? Is the concept of parliamentary supremacy entirely foreign to Talossa? In a sense, yes. Talossa would follow constituonal supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. |
|
