Jump to content

Aulic Court Review: The Legislative Process of Repeating Proposals


Pureimp10
 Share

Recommended Posts

AULIC COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF HANSETI-RUSKA

 

REVIEW ON THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF REPEATING PROPOSALS

 

M70oPyyAaWZIRb1Jz3lg7Co2L93OOECstTddCX9GC5v13rGCrmdiU9egA67VDj7VYFfFNJUJ0GXftO5cCR0qiPgWNbaiNht1afr20r9qBxfQT39ETfyE2Wk5cJsUD8O4EKokUqJW

5th of Wzuvar & Byvca, 355 E.S.

 


 

Jovenaars

Sir Sigmar J. Baruch

Ms. Reza B. Gynsburg

Mr. Otto Wittenbach

Mr. Lukas Rakoczy 

 

MAJORITY: Rakoczy, joined by Gynsburg

CONCURRENCE: Wittenbach

DISSENT: Baruch

 

Exposition

 

A multitude of acts are rejected at the behest of the Duma vote, as has been seen in recent years. The Josefian reforms have also brought a period of great change to the procedure of the Duma. However, as the Duma cannot legislate on itself (see Aulic Court Review: Relationship Between the Royal Duma and the Aulic Government), this request for review must be issued.

 

As a sitting member of the Duma, and peer of the realm, the Duke of Valwyck sees fit to defer to the Aulic Court for a legal opinion on the following:

 

The Haurul Caezk states that a bill of the Royal Duma must be passed by majority vote and may become law with the confirmation of the Koeng following its majority vote, implicating that it is failed when said bill does not reach these requisites:

 

212.01: Members of the Duma may submit bills to the Royal Duma that must be passed by majority vote;

212.042: Once passed with a majority vote, a legislative bill shall require assent from the Crown to become binding law;

 

The question that should be raised is whether or not a bill that has failed to reach these requisites after being introduced in the Duma should have the ability to be reintroduced, unaltered, in the Duma sessions following its failure, including the cohort contrary to the one it was first presented in. 

 

See the full amicus brief from Lord Matyas Baruch: https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/197497-letter-to-the-aulic-court-353-es/

 

Jovenaar Lukas Rakoczy delivered the opinion of the court;

 

The dispute focuses primarily on the question of whether legislation that has failed once may be re-introduced without modification during a meeting of another cohort. Even though noble cohorts have since been removed from the structure of the Royal Duma at the time of publication, the court still finds it pertinent to offer a judgement on this matter. It is the belief of the Aulic Court that the Royal Duma may not re-introduce failed legislation without major modification during the same four-year session. Any legislation that passes the Duma does so with the consent of the people, with legislators voting on behalf of and as the representatives of the people and the peers. Legislation that fails to pass, therefore, has clearly failed to attain the consent and support of the people, and to re-introduce such legislation would be to subvert the will of the people.

 

Jovenaar Sigmar J. Baruch in dissent;

 

On the dispute of re-introducing legislation without modification after failure to pass, this Jovenaar finds that through decades of set precedent and no objections to the matter found within the Haurul Caezk, it would be unprecedented and detrimental to the ability of the Royal Duma to restrict members of the body from introducing bills to the floor. Furthermore, it is not the place of the Aulic Courts to legislate on the abilities of members of the Royal Duma which directly affects their service within the Duma, it is only the Aulic Courts place to protect precedent, and interpret the Law. It is the ability of Duma members to introduce legislation in hopes of it becoming written law, therefore we should not restrict the capacity in which members can do this and take part in the writing and introducing of legislation.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Edited by Pureimp10
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...