Constitutional legal minds are shaking their heads at Sarah's revelation that she sought advice on whether she should table the motion to dissolve Parliament. They find this lack of understanding of our constitution by our Prime Minister both shocking and frightening. If she is so ignorant of basic constitutional principles, it is thought, what is she doing leading a country?
First of all they point out, the constitution is the highest law in the land. Parliament can make no laws that conflict with the constitution. So highly is our constitution held in esteem that St. Maarten is the only country in the Kingdom with a constitutional court to ensure that laws that are in conflict with it can be legally challenged.
By way of example they point to Parliament's right to dismiss government by a vote of no confidence. This right is guaranteed to Parliament by the constitution. No legal advise can tell them when or when not to use it. That would be putting legal advisers above our Constitution. Similarly government cannot be bound by any legal advise about how and when to use the right to dissolve Parliament. The constitutional thinkers point out that only the voters have the right to decide whether government was right to dissolve to Parliament. This they can do this by either voting the party that dissolved government out of power or keeping them in office.
Furthermore they point out, the right to dissolve Parliament after a vote of no confidence is such a well established doctrine in constitutional law, that they fail to understand what the fuss is about or why advise is even needed., It is nothing new or unusual. The argument therefore that the Prime Minister advances for not tabling the motion to dissolve Parliament do not hold water. The right to dissolved Parliament is granted by the constitution, the very same constitution that gives Parliament to right to dismiss government. Constitutional rights are therefore "holy" and should not be tampered it.
Name withheld upon author's request.