Your Excellency,

The constitution requires that the next Parliamentary elections are to be held on Saturday, May 10 or Sunday, May 11.

The Writ for Election should therefore be issued on April 30 or May 1 to allow enough time for the requirements of the Code Electoral to be met.

FINALLY, the elections are going to be held as per the Constitutional schedule.

Isn't it a three month session from the previous election? If not, it should be.

There's a term of three months for Parliament. The next election is supposed to happen three months from now.

Remember Parliament has been dissolved before, so the schedule is gets screwed over.

My comment is meant to reflect that the Constitutional schedule has never been followed for elections, not even for the first election ever held (for which the dissolution-hiccup can't be used as an excuse). I applaud the High Court's decision to start enforcing constitutional law on this matter, either way.

I would suggest trying to wrestle the elections back to their constitutionally defined timings at some point soon. I have endeavoured to do as much in both Valenciennes and the Interior Ministry. It makes life easier.

There is a maximum term of three months for a Parliament, i.e. the three months between the constitutionally required elections.

If a Parliament is dissolved mid-term, the newly-elected Parliament may only serve out the remainder of the term of the dissolved Parliament.

Makes Sense...

That would be IMHO much better than the current rigid constitution-imposed schedule.

I actually think that having it set in concrete makes more sense.

But it doesn't allow for adaptability. Technically, one can argue that every Parliament since the emergency dissolution due to inactivity has been illegal because of the fact it was not elected according to the constitutional law.

(Don't worry, I'm not going to go to the High Court and argue that.)

you raise a good point though John, anyone arrested under laws in those parliaments could claim that it was unconstitutional.

That has to be a first!

I would suggest that we just attempt to realign at some point, not rule that every law passed is illegal.

Wait a second here. His Imperial Majesty is the one that has dissolved Parliament to ensure that activity in there continues. It is therefore not illegal, because the action was taken and persued by His Imperial Majesty, not the PM or Parliament itself.

I'm not sure if you can actually find an argument there though, thats all im saying btw.

I can argue contrary to that but for the sake of making sure franco torres doesn't have an unfair advantage, I won't.