A nine-page constitutional law assignment that critiques all three arguments (by A, B and C) in a hypothetical case about a presidential request for reconsideration of a bill during a National Assembly recess, the promulgation of statutes and when they take effect. In the case, the National Assembly consists of Party A with 100 seats, Party B with 153 and Party C with 47. Bill X, passed under Party B's leadership, is returned by a president from Party A on the seventh day after transmission, during a recess, with a request for reconsideration on the ground that it is undesirable as policy.

On reconsideration, the Assembly passes the same bill again with 200 votes in favor, but the president does not promulgate the finalized statute; the Speaker's subsequent promulgation and an administrative fine imposed on citizen K then become the issues. The first chapter critiques A's argument that the request for reconsideration is void because the Assembly is not in session during a recess. After summarizing the constitutional provisions on submitting and promulgating bills, it argues that the procedure in this case conforms to the Constitution because the Constitution expressly allows a request for reconsideration even during a recess.

The second chapter addresses B's argument that the veto may be used only when there is a legal problem, so a request based on policy grounds is unconstitutional. It explains the significance of the legislative veto under the separation of powers in a presidential system and criticizes B's argument on the basis that the Constitution does not limit the grounds for a request for reconsideration. The third chapter examines C's argument that the fine was justified because the statute was finalized by the second vote and K could have learned of it from the news.

It summarizes when a statute is promulgated and comes into existence and the constitutional rule that, absent a special provision, a statute takes effect only after a set period from promulgation, and discusses how a court should treat Statute X when reviewing the legality of the fine. It is a useful reference for case-based assignments in classes on the structure of government and constitutional law. In critiquing B's argument, it gives examples of when a president may veto a bill (when it cannot be implemented, when it is contrary to the national interest, when it is an unfair political attack, or when the president considers it to violate the Constitution or higher law) and notes that, instead of a veto, the president can promulgate the law and then submit an amendment, so the power should be used with restraint.

When a parcel return deadline is seven days from receipt, I habitually open a calendar and count the days, because working out whether the first day counts and what happens when a weekend falls in between is more confusing than you would think. Reading this assignment reminded me that the constitutional procedure for handling bills is ultimately also a matter of counting days. The moment you put the numbers 15 days after transmission, 5 days after finalization and 20 days after promulgation on a calendar, what is wrong with each of the three arguments becomes clear.

What makes this case tricky is that each argument leans on plausible common sense. 'There is no Assembly during a recess', 'a veto should be used only when a bill is unconstitutional' and 'if people learned about it from the news, it is in effect' all sound right at first. For each argument, this paper first checks the relevant constitutional provisions and then applies them to the facts, clearly showing where common sense and the Constitution part ways.

Reading it while checking the constitutional provisions one by one, what stayed with me was why the formality of promulgation matters: however many people learned of it from the news, a law that has not gone through promulgation cannot bind citizens, and that principle protects the predictability of a state governed by the rule of law. The point most often missed in case-based assignments like this is the date of entry into force.

If you separate finalization, promulgation and entry into force as three different dates, the reasoning for critiquing C's argument falls into place naturally. Note that the cover of this material says it is a sample report, so use only its structure and reasoning and be sure to write the sentences in your own words.