321
edits
User:Nolis: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
mNo edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|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. | '''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, including provincially-domestic enacted provisions. 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}}. | 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}}. | ||