User:Nolis: Difference between revisions
Nolis
- 321 edits
No edit summary |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Italic title}} | ||
{{Infobox court case | |||
|name = Cape Province vs Superior Auditorium of Cape Province | |||
|court = [[Supreme Tribunal of the Cape]] | |||
|image = | |||
|imagesize = | |||
|imagelink = | |||
|imagealt = | |||
|caption = | |||
|full name = In enacting provisions on commerce concerning alcohol, do provinces violate the Constitutional power granted to the Federal government to regulate interprovincial commerce? | |||
|date decided = January 11, 2003 | |||
|citations = Ck 1120 (2002), ''Case rejected, cite original jurisdiction as defined by SNA Tribunals act'' | |||
|ECLI = | |||
|transcripts = | |||
|judges = | |||
|number of judges = | |||
| | |decision by = | ||
| | |concurring = | ||
| | |dissenting = | ||
| | |concur/dissent = | ||
| | |prior actions = | ||
|appealed from = | |||
|appealed to = | |||
|subsequent actions = | |||
|related actions = | |||
|opinions = Article 4 of the Fundamental Statutes of the Constitution grants the Supreme National Assembly the sole power to enact, or not to enact, limits on interstate commerce, and having granted that power as regards to alcohol to the [[Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive]], the ''Preserving our distilling and brewing heritage Act'' of [[Natal]] province is overturned. | |||
|keywords = <!-- {{Hlist|...}} --> | |||
| | |italic title = | ||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
}} | }} | ||
''' | '''Cape Province vs Superior Auditorium of Cape Province''' Ts. 981 (2003) was a landmark decision of the [[Supreme Tribunal of the Federacy|Supreme Tribunal]] of [[the Cape]], in which the court ruled that the [[Supreme National Assembly]], and by extension the Capetian federal government, had the sole power and purview over interprovincial commerce, including provincially enacted provisions that apply solely domestically. The decision struck down many provincial laws governing interprovincial commerce and led to the further centralization of political power from the Cape's provinces to the federal government in [[Cape Town]]. The decision sparked debate as to the specific rights of provinces, the separation of powers, and the role of the Supreme Tribunal in governing the organs of state; as this was the first case in Capetian history involving a dispute over the jurisdiction of major governmental organs. | ||
The case was sparked by the ''Preserving our distilling and brewing heritage Act'' enacted by the province of [[Natal]] in November of 2000 - the law stipulated an additional 14% sales tax on alcohol sold within the province that was not brewed or distilled within it, or does not contain at least 51% Natal-origin raw ingredients. Such additional sales taxes, although rare, existed throughout the country - although never applied in such a blanket, unilateral manner to such a major industry. [[Cape Province]], a major alcohol producer, had little recourse. The predominant opinion of the day was that such sales taxes came purely under the purview of the respective legislating provinces, and that these legislative rights came under the protections granted to them by the constitution under the Capetian view of {{wp|symmetric federalism}}. In response, Cape Province enacted the equivalent tax towards Natal's wine exports. | |||
The | The case was brought forth by the [[Superior Auditorium of Cape Province]]; unlike its homonymous federal counterpart, it serves as the province's independent {{wp|ombudsman|auditory body}} and {{wp|prosecutor}}. The Superior Auditorium, after collusion with the provincial legislature and executive, contended that such taxes were unconstitutional as they applied to imported products and therefore came under the sole purview of the federal government and its [[Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive]]. In effect, the province would sue itself. Considered frivolous, the original case was thrown out of the [[Cape Province Superior Court]] and was recommended to the legislature for interpretation under its sovereignty rights. However, with Cape Province's legislature colluding and choosing not to enact its {{wp|parliamentary sovereignty}} rights, the case was brought before the Supreme Tribunal under its power of {{wp|original jurisdiction}}. | ||
In January 2003, the Supreme Tribunal issued a 4-3 decision in favour of the Superior Auditorium holding that provinces enacting domestic legislation that applies to the economic activity of other provinces would be considered interprovincial commerce and would therefore fall under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme National Assembly and the federal government that derives from it. | |||
==Background== | |||
===History of provincial rights in the Cape=== | |||
Symmetric federalism is a major part of Capetian constitutionalism. Framed by [[Melvyn Kalma]] in the first meeting of the Supreme National Assembly during the [[Capetian War of Independence]], it maintained the tenuous alliance between the settlers and Indigenous factions that comprised the independence-seeking [[National Revolutionary Army]]; promising them each strong provinces with equal rights in the post-war Cape. These rights, while written into the Fundamental Statutes of the 1901 Constitution, and each subsequent constitution, existed primarily on paper. Kalma and his [[Republican Nationalist Party]] had cemented a {{wp|one-party system|one-party state}}. With each province controlled by Republicans and Kalma loyalists, interprovincial disputes were resolved in the organs of the RNP rather than through the organs of state. This arrangement would remain until the [[1992 Republic Day revolution]] and the subsequent partial democratization of the country. The RNP, while retaining power under the provision of [[Planoarita politics|''Planoarita'' politics]], would become a largely federal organization to encourage democratic development, with the intention of beginning these reforms in the sphere of provincial politics. In effect, each provincial chapter of the RNP was split into its own ''de-facto ''independent party, and while each provincial RNP chapter continues to maintain power in each province, the informal party-based mechanism for adjudicating disputes was removed overnight. | |||
===History of alcohol in the Cape=== | |||
==Decision== | |||
==Reception== | |||
RNP split apart | |||
| | |||
Latest revision as of 23:52, 19 July 2023
| Cape Province vs Superior Auditorium of Cape Province | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Tribunal of the Cape |
| Full case name | In enacting provisions on commerce concerning alcohol, do provinces violate the Constitutional power granted to the Federal government to regulate interprovincial commerce? |
| Decided | January 11, 2003 |
| Citation(s) | Ck 1120 (2002), Case rejected, cite original jurisdiction as defined by SNA Tribunals act |
| Case opinions | |
| Article 4 of the Fundamental Statutes of the Constitution grants the Supreme National Assembly the sole power to enact, or not to enact, limits on interstate commerce, and having granted that power as regards to alcohol to the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive, the Preserving our distilling and brewing heritage Act of Natal province is overturned. | |
Cape Province vs Superior Auditorium of Cape Province Ts. 981 (2003) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Cape, in which the court ruled that the Supreme National Assembly, and by extension the Capetian federal government, had the sole power and purview over interprovincial commerce, including provincially enacted provisions that apply solely domestically. The decision struck down many provincial laws governing interprovincial commerce and led to the further centralization of political power from the Cape's provinces to the federal government in Cape Town. The decision sparked debate as to the specific rights of provinces, the separation of powers, and the role of the Supreme Tribunal in governing the organs of state; as this was the first case in Capetian history involving a dispute over the jurisdiction of major governmental organs.
The case was sparked by the Preserving our distilling and brewing heritage Act enacted by the province of Natal in November of 2000 - the law stipulated an additional 14% sales tax on alcohol sold within the province that was not brewed or distilled within it, or does not contain at least 51% Natal-origin raw ingredients. Such additional sales taxes, although rare, existed throughout the country - although never applied in such a blanket, unilateral manner to such a major industry. Cape Province, a major alcohol producer, had little recourse. The predominant opinion of the day was that such sales taxes came purely under the purview of the respective legislating provinces, and that these legislative rights came under the protections granted to them by the constitution under the Capetian view of symmetric federalism. In response, Cape Province enacted the equivalent tax towards Natal's wine exports.
The case was brought forth by the Superior Auditorium of Cape Province; unlike its homonymous federal counterpart, it serves as the province's independent auditory body and prosecutor. The Superior Auditorium, after collusion with the provincial legislature and executive, contended that such taxes were unconstitutional as they applied to imported products and therefore came under the sole purview of the federal government and its Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive. In effect, the province would sue itself. Considered frivolous, the original case was thrown out of the Cape Province Superior Court and was recommended to the legislature for interpretation under its sovereignty rights. However, with Cape Province's legislature colluding and choosing not to enact its parliamentary sovereignty rights, the case was brought before the Supreme Tribunal under its power of original jurisdiction.
In January 2003, the Supreme Tribunal issued a 4-3 decision in favour of the Superior Auditorium holding that provinces enacting domestic legislation that applies to the economic activity of other provinces would be considered interprovincial commerce and would therefore fall under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme National Assembly and the federal government that derives from it.
Background
History of provincial rights in the Cape
Symmetric federalism is a major part of Capetian constitutionalism. Framed by Melvyn Kalma in the first meeting of the Supreme National Assembly during the Capetian War of Independence, it maintained the tenuous alliance between the settlers and Indigenous factions that comprised the independence-seeking National Revolutionary Army; promising them each strong provinces with equal rights in the post-war Cape. These rights, while written into the Fundamental Statutes of the 1901 Constitution, and each subsequent constitution, existed primarily on paper. Kalma and his Republican Nationalist Party had cemented a one-party state. With each province controlled by Republicans and Kalma loyalists, interprovincial disputes were resolved in the organs of the RNP rather than through the organs of state. This arrangement would remain until the 1992 Republic Day revolution and the subsequent partial democratization of the country. The RNP, while retaining power under the provision of Planoarita politics, would become a largely federal organization to encourage democratic development, with the intention of beginning these reforms in the sphere of provincial politics. In effect, each provincial chapter of the RNP was split into its own de-facto independent party, and while each provincial RNP chapter continues to maintain power in each province, the informal party-based mechanism for adjudicating disputes was removed overnight.
History of alcohol in the Cape
Decision
Reception
RNP split apart