View Topic

Below is Article I, Section 9 of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath

Should the Overhusen veto any legislation, the legislation may be reintroduced in the Underhusen for the purposes of either revising the proposal or overriding the veto. The Underhusen may overturn a veto by a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Below is Section 2.3 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act

The Storting shall have the authority to revoke Citizenship from any person with a majority vote of both chambers, so long as the legislation revoking the Citizenship contains the reasons for doing so. Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Storting may appeal the decision to the Monarch, who can restore Citizenship by decree.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath takes priority over any statutory laws. Just to name an example, in the event of a citizenship revocation, should it be supported by the entirety of the Underhusen (or at least 2/3 of it), even if it is vetoed by the Overhusen, can it still be brought back and enacted by overriding the veto?

Well, I do acknowledge that there are no past instances of the Underhusen overriding a veto from the Overhusen. However, if I may, I would like to enquire about the constitutionality of any laws involving clauses that seek the approval from both chambers, the Underhusen and the Overhusen.

For reference... That section... Section 2.3 is already known to be flawed... "With a majority vote of both chambers" has been in debate before as to whether it means that we have to vote together or if a separate vote is still appropriate or even legal... The intent of the law was separate vote but the law by writing reads a together vote, at least by my eye... And it's come up before...
Basically... We wrote our laws like really badly... All of the early ones are just... Terrible... Just... Awful... We've been.. Better? As of late however when you stand on a flawed base and you write everything off that base your things are bound to be flawed...

I see, but if we were to stick to the original intent of Section 2.3 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act. with the votes being tallied separately, can the Underhusen legally revoke the citizenship of a Wintrean by itself?

This is why we have an amendment process, to fix problems, ambiguities, and conflicts that come up over time.

For the record, I hope that any solution preserves what I consider to be the secondary principle of our government, that on some major issues there should be consensus among the branches, such as a revocation of Citizenship.

Yes it can. Fundamental Laws take precedence over Statutory laws when they conflict. Therefore the Underhusen can override a veto by the UH for any law.

If that is the case, I would like to once again enquire about the constitutionality of any laws involving clauses that seek the approval from both chambers. Meanwhile, out of pure interest, is the Underhusen willing to relieve its authority to override a veto from the Overhusen?

The laws themselves would either be illegal or that section would be. Further the only way the Underhusen can remove it's veto power would be an amendment to the Fundamental Laws. I would not support such an amendment as it exists incase of emergencies.

Yes it can. Fundamental Laws take precedence over Statutory laws when they conflict.

My memories of the law are, as always and as you well know, hazy... Can you point out the place where this is written?

The laws themselves would either be illegal or that section would be. Further the only way the Underhusen can remove it's veto power would be an amendment to the Fundamental Laws. I would not support such an amendment as it exists incase of emergencies.

Can someone else verify the above statement regarding any statutory laws involving clauses that seek the approval from both chambers?

Mainly because if Section 2.3 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is deemed illegal, the Storting has just lost its power to initiate a citizenship revocation.

The Storting shall have the authority to revoke Citizenship from any person with a majority vote of both chambers, so long as the legislation revoking the Citizenship contains the reasons for doing so. Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Storting may appeal the decision to the Monarch, who can restore Citizenship by decree.

technically it could just apply to the offending place, so that phrase would be illegal and be non-applicable.

Do you have any existing legislation which supports your claim that the unconstitutionality of a law only affects the offending phrase?

Well we honestly have no precedent what-so-ever. I mean if we had a case heard by a court I could at least predict, but in reality it's up in the air at this point.

I am not exactly sure how this links to the judiciary. My point is that if Section 2.3 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is unconstitutional (and therefore illegal), the Storting (legislature) would not have the ability to pass an act revoking the citizenship of a Wintrean.

Sapphiron, I'm gonna be straight with you here... Are laws are awful. Like really terrible... They're largely nonfunctional and the parts that do function we don't know how to use or are too scared to...
It's impossible for us to answer this question because we literally have no idea.
Like a law can be turned over if it's unconstitutional and it's sort of implied that laws have no effects if they're unconstitutional but I don't personally remember if it actually directly says that anywhere... Or if it matters... If people want a thing to happen it really just will... Our law exists simply to reinforce itself and as a fun little amendment project to do... It has no actual or functional use...

Alright then ...