321
edits
Nolis
Joined 13 August 2020
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
mNo edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Italic title}} | {{Italic title}} | ||
{{Infobox court case | {{Infobox court case | ||
|name = Cape Province vs | |name = Cape Province vs Superior Auditorium of Cape Province | ||
|court = [[Supreme Tribunal of the Cape]] | |court = [[Supreme Tribunal of the Cape]] | ||
|image = | |image = | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|italic title = | |italic title = | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Cape Province vs | '''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 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 case was brought forth by 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 | 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== | ==Background== | ||