Previous Story
‘Legislature can amend initiatives’
|
Posted on Aug 27 2004
There is no suggestion in the CNMI Constitution that laws passed by initiative petitions have “superior” status to other laws, said assistant attorney general James Livingstone in refuting a petitioner’s claim that a Tinian local law is “inferior” than an act revised through a people’s initiative.
Livingstone, who represents Gov. Juan N. Babauta in the case filed by the Tinian Gaming Commission, said that courts throughout the U.S. have repeatedly held that, without a constitutional provision to the contrary, a law enacted by the people through an initiative may be amended or repealed by the Legislature to the same extent as any other law.
Given this, he said there is no basis to the petitioner’s contention that the Tinian delegation lacks power to amend or repeal local laws enacted by initiative petitions to the same extent as the laws it enacts.
“Thus, the Tinian Delegation’s actions modifying the revised Casino Gaming Act of 1989 by local law were valid,” said Livingstone.
Further, he said that Article II, Section 6 of the CNMI Constitution empowers the Legislature, including the Tinian legislative delegation, to determine what laws may be enacted by local law.
The commission earlier filed petitions asking the court to declare that Tinian Local Law 14-1, which was signed into law by Babauta last May 24, is invalid, and that the results of the Nov. 1, 2003 popular initiative caused the adoption of changes to the Casino Act.
It seeks judicial declaration that would effectively uphold the adoption of the Casino Act amendments through the popular initiative.
Commission legal counsel Elliot A. Sattler said that the Casino Act could only be amended by “an act of equal dignity,” specifically through a popular initiative, and not through the passage of a local law. (Liberty Dones)
