to prevent misunderstanding i would like to explain what i will mean when i say “disabled people” in this post:
“disabled people” are people that due to some physical disadvantage can not perform work like a normal person can.
here in iceland your disabled rating is given by a doctor after you have suffered an accident or something like that, if you are for example 25% disabled you recieve 25% of a given amount from the government insurance agency.
anyway, this amount was also reduced if your mate has a high income. recently the surpreme court in iceland verdict that the laws that allowed the government to reduce the disableds income because of his mates high income was against the constitution.
now a legislation has been agreed, and it contained…well following is a letter from the president of parlament to the president of the surpreme court:
"President of the surpreme court,
Garðar Gíslason. 23. january 2001
Because of the verdict of the surpreme court on the 19th of december 2000 in case nr 125/2000 the government has presented a legislation to change laws nr. 117/1993 about public insurances, with later changes. In the legislation it is planned that as before there might be a decresement in the amount of income the disabled will recieve because of his/hers mates income. During the presentation of the legislation to parlament there have been disputes about, if said verdict from the surpreme court had meant that in was in general against the constitution to have such an income connection. Which is why the president commitee of the parlament seeks an answer from the president of the surpreme court whether or not the verdict includes that conclusion.
Reply from the president of the surpreme court:
"Presidental commitee of the parlament 23rd of january 2001. Regarding the letter from the 23rd of january 2001, where an answer from the president of the surpreme court is sought about the verdict of the surpreme court from the 19th of december in case nr. 125/2000, if income connection because of a mate like is said in the laws is in general against the constitution. it was verdict that it was against the constitution but the verdict does not include a position versus further discussion, in the light of that i must answer your question, no!
it simply looks like a kid that runs to his mom to ask if he can go out and play because his dad said no.
I HATE THE STUPID, OBNOXIOUS AND SMELLY GOVERNMENT!!!
right after the verdict the government assembled a commitee to interpet the verdict and to suggest ways to “follow” it.
now they are simply trying to rewrite the laws so they will be the same but not against the constitution.
bj0rn - the majority is stupid.