Discussion: Request for Clarification "Article 3.1.6 of the Constitiution"

Great. See below for a proposed decision.

Opinion of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the request for clarifaction made by Eluvatar on Article 3, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution​

Request made by Eluvatar:
Some months ago, the Regional Assembly voted 10:7 to adopt a law on endorsement caps. Under the Constitution, "6. The Delegate may veto bills passed through the Assembly that have not been approved by a three-fifths majority vote. "

The previous Delegate, Blue Wolf II, declined to veto or sign the bill, which was understood to act as a kind of pocket veto.

I believe it'd be inappropriate for a Delegate to sign this after so long a time has passed, and that should anyone wish to revive this bill they should resubmit it to the Regional Assembly, but would it be legal for me to do so?
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant clause from the Constitution:
Article 3.1.6 of the Constitution:
6. The Delegate may veto bills passed through the Assembly that have not been approved by a three-fifths majority vote.
Click to expand...

The Court has determined that nowhere does the Constitution or any other law of TNP create provisions for there to be a "pocket veto". It is the Opinion of the Court that if the Delegate does not sign or Veto a Bill that bill simply waits for a decision to be made by the Delegate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top