I have a question for the Attorney General. I would like to know your opinion on a legal situation.
If a new law comes in effect and an element of that law comes in opposition to an element in a precedent law still valid (there is no mention of an element replacing the other or one being abolished). Basically two clauses in two laws contradicts each other.
Example: the elecoral laws says an absentee ballot can't be replace by voting in the regular election while later the absentee voting act says it can be replaced.
What happens when there are two acts that state opposite things?
Is it automatic the newest law replaces the older one? (without a legal mention of the old law being abolished)
Is the electoral Act supreme over other act related to elections?
No statute is binding over subsequently passed statutes. Only the Constitution has that effect.
