User:Nolis: Difference between revisions
m (Replaced content with "{{Italic title}} {{Infobox court case |name = Cape Province vs Supreme Auditorium of Cape Province |court = Supreme Tribunal of the Cape |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = In enacting provisions on interprovincial commerce concerning alcohol, do provinces violate the Constitutional power granted to the Federal government to regulate "ce...") Tags: Replaced 2017 source edit |
mNo edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|imagealt = | |imagealt = | ||
|caption = | |caption = | ||
|full name = In enacting provisions on | |full name = In enacting provisions on commerce concerning alcohol, do provinces violate the Constitutional power granted to the Federal government to regulate "certain sectors"? | ||
|date decided = January 11, 2003 | |date decided = January 11, 2003 | ||
|citations = | |citations = Ck 1120 (2002), ''Case rejected, cite original jurisdiction as defined by SNA Tribunals act'' | ||
|ECLI = | |ECLI = | ||
|transcripts = | |transcripts = | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|subsequent actions = | |subsequent actions = | ||
|related actions = | |related actions = | ||
|opinions = Article 4 of the Fundamental Statutes of the Constitution grants the Supreme National Assembly the sole power to | |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 "certain sectors", and having granted that power as regards to alcohol to the [[Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive]], the ''Preserving our provincial distilling and brewing heritage act'' of [[Natal]] province is overturned. | ||
|keywords = <!-- {{Hlist|...}} --> | |keywords = <!-- {{Hlist|...}} --> | ||
|italic title = | |italic title = | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Cape Province vs Supreme 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. 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, 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 provincial distilling and brewing heritage act'' enacted by the province of [[Natal]] in November of 2000 - the law stipulated an additional 7% sales tax on alcohol sold within the province that was not brewed or distilled within it, or does not contain at least 51% Natal raw ingredients. Such additional sales taxes, although rare, existed throughout the provinces of 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}}. | |||
brought forth by the [[Supreme Auditorium of Cape Province]]; unlike its homonymous federal counterpart, serves as the province's independent {{wp|ombudsman|auditory body}} and {{wp|prosecutor}}. The Supreme Auditorium | |||
RNP split apart | |||
Revision as of 00:10, 20 July 2023
| Cape Province vs Supreme 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 "certain sectors"? |
| 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 "certain sectors", and having granted that power as regards to alcohol to the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Executive, the Preserving our provincial distilling and brewing heritage act of Natal province is overturned. | |
Cape Province vs Supreme 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. 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, 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 provincial distilling and brewing heritage act enacted by the province of Natal in November of 2000 - the law stipulated an additional 7% sales tax on alcohol sold within the province that was not brewed or distilled within it, or does not contain at least 51% Natal raw ingredients. Such additional sales taxes, although rare, existed throughout the provinces of 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.
brought forth by the Supreme Auditorium of Cape Province; unlike its homonymous federal counterpart, serves as the province's independent auditory body and prosecutor. The Supreme Auditorium
RNP split apart