Type Here to Get Search Results !

Why the Supreme Speaker matches why the Supreme Court match (full judgment)


Congress is a reasons that it was a parliamentary procedure for  a ruling procedure that is a parliamentary procedure rice field. It is counted as part of the decision to vote, and a part of the quorum for decision making in the house. The court decided that the 1992 Constitution may not restrict that the secondary speaker will be a member of the quorum for decision-making, in the decision of the Sevenemember panel written by the judge's judge. It turned out that it was judged. 


 In the famous view of the General Court, parliament's second speaker (MPS) was elected as a representative of the election world, and they lost their casting vote  to  their regulations to lose parliament. "Simply apologized for such a member  of the lecturer's work, but also for the fact that the instructor's work could apologize, but also the fact that they apologized. Interpretation Perhaps will probably bring a specific perverted result. For example, as the absence of "for example, a court held" will mean the parliament and its party's voting loss, for example, it can lead to  one of the Japanese and other secondary speakers Sexual. 

 Parliament Sovereignty 

 Court of judgment [Copy of all certificates below] is a parliamentary custom order 109 (3) adopts a secondary speaker in the sequential order of parliament. Vote with reference to the decision. This statement raised the problem of whether the court can interfere with the parliament and "political education". When I answered this question, the court said that countries have been a year with the conservation of the Constitution with the sovereignty of parliament. The court believes that the 1992 Constitution gave a power to explain all acts or agencies of the government, violates zero in violation of the 1992 Constitution. 

 "Therefore, the Constitutional instructions of the Constitutional Ordinance is suppressed, anyway, the arms of government or state government agencies, including parliament, are not their own laws. The court stopped. Quorum With respect to the quorum, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1992 Constitution distinguishes between  quorum (Article 102) and quorum (Article 104) for the business of Parliament. Rule 104 (1) only prohibits elected persons from becoming speakers, as it will be part of the quorum  of the House of Representatives business, and the agent will be part of that quorum. I didn't ban it. 

 "Regarding non-voting quorum, Rule 102 makes it clear that the Vice-Chairman who is a member of Parliament and is present is not  counted when determining the number. "However, Article 104 (1). No such restrictions or restrictions shall be imposed on the chairman or vice-chairman with respect to  the determination of the "voting quorum" based on. The omission of the expression "other than the presiding officer" in Article 104 (1) must have been intentional. Another view would question the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution and replace their clear intentions, "the court ruled. 

 Voting Regarding the Vice-Chairman's vote, the court ruled that there was a clear distinction between the elected person  and the Vice-Chairman. The court ruled that, under Article 97 (1), the chairman cannot be a member of parliament, but all vice-chairmen are members of parliament. In addition, Article 104 (2) prohibits "speakers" from voting, and B. Vice-chairman who presides over the session of the parliament. "Importantly, the disqualification of Rule 104 (2) is specific to the speaker and therefore generally does not apply  to the" chairman ". 

 "The chair is forbidden to vote because he  is not a member of parliament, not because he is the chair of parliament, but because only  members of parliament have the right to vote," the court ruled. .. Also, the only case in which a vice-chairman or a member of parliament was barred from voting in parliament occurred under Rule 104 (5) when a member of parliament had a conflict of interest in a particular contract under consideration. It was the court's view that it did. "The chairman at the legislative session shall not  be considered an ineligible conflict of interest by the drafters of the Constitution, and therefore the chairman's vice-chairman votes solely on the grounds that he chairs in the absence of the chairman. I will not lose my rights. Congress. "


Post a Comment

* Please Don't Spam Here. All the Comments are Reviewed by Admin.