Neither tenable nor amenable

THE EDITOR: The Attorney General's concept that the Constitution can be changed by simple majority because it is not changing the Constitution is neither tenable nor amenable.

The headings he argues for are (1) not in the Constitution and (2) comprise political ideology superceded by the 1976 Constitution: proportionality, reasonableness, necessity, comparability, appropriateness, severability, hybridisation of bodies, hybridisation of powers and rules, packages of laws separated in time, passing laws to direct the activities of the Executive, alleged "malleability" of existing law.

While some of these words count within the judicial processes, they never governed what is a simple majority or constitutional one. But worse, he even asserts that "because" the budget-"imposing tax" is passed on a simple majority, anything to do with "management" via "money bills" is a simple majority – this speaks to competence and misleading Parliament.

The Revenue Authority requires a constitutional majority because it changes the structure of the Constitution; but then also because of the assertion of a legislating paradigm. The hybridisation of the BIR with the Excise alone makes it so, plus a multiplicity of other issues including: the splitting up of the powers already possessed in the board and the idea that some future legislated control of the Executive actuates a simple majority in the present.

E GALY

via e-mail