Art Verbotten
Group: citizens
(850 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:16)
Citizen #19:
Art Verbotten | Hello,
>Q: I'm looking for a decision of the High Court on the interpretation of Article 1.3.6 of the Constitution of the Republic, because it's only your right to interpetate the Constitution [§2.4.8(4)]
I’d call this a clarification rather than a decision or interpretation..
Justices should only "interpret" when clarity is an issue.
Otherwise our job is to explain, uphold, and when defend if necessary, but I digress.
The article reads:
New provinces may be formed by Parliament out of the territory of existing provinces, on the motion of:
(a) a petition of citizens either resident in or assigned to the territory concerned, and with;
(b) the consent of the legislature(s) (if these exist) of the province(s) affected.
>Q: Does the definition of new province imply also the change of the sovereignty in a territory between two existing provinces? IMHO this article deals only on the formation of new (6th, 7th, 8th, etc) Provinces.
That’s 2 questions, I’m charging double. :-)
Q1-The first one: Does the definition of “new province” imply also the change of the sovereignty in a territory between two existing provinces?
Provided it is the consensual change of the citizenry and is approved by Parliament , I see nothing in our current laws to prevent creating a province out of the landscape of 2 provinces or even merging parts together. You are of course asking a bunch of Talossans to all agree on something which is a much bigger task than getting a favorable Court clarification. :-)
For this opinion I site the following from our new Constitution:
TC 1.1.3A
Article 1.1.3A
"The territory of the Republic of Talossa consists of the territories of those Provinces of the former Kingdom of Talossa known as Cézembre, Florenciâ, Maricopa, and Maritiimi-Maxhestic."
And 1.3.1:
"The founding Provinces of the Republic of Talossa shall be Cézembre, Florenciâ, Maricopa, Maritiimi, and Pórt Maxhestic."
There is nothing stated in either article to say that the border integrity of these provinces cannot be altered or even that they must be named thusly.
All that is demanded is that whatever takes place is within the borders defined in Article 1.1.3 B (not reprinted for brevity purposes) and that the changes made are agreed upon by the citizens of the areas in question, and all changes are formally approved by the legislature as stated in 1.3.6.
I will point out that this is probably not the “intent” or “spirit” the authors had when drafting this clause of this article. I don’t think this type of alteration of the provinces was really foreseen. While the Constitution may seem favorable, I don’t think the legislature will be the same about allowing this to happen, but I never say never. The will of the people.......
Q2: IMHO this article deals only on the formation of new (6th, 7th, 8th, etc) Provinces.
IMHO I think you are correct in assuming that developing provinces out of the new territory we claimed when we left the Kingdom was intent of this as well. I don't believe the authors wanted to encourage the re-sculpting and/or merging of the existing provinces.
Interesting idea though.
That is my opinion on this matter,
Justice Verbotten 7.24.05
|
