When asked by the President, why is it ...

[MeyaN]

When asked by the President, why is it not mandatory for the Supreme Court to tender its opinion when the subject matter is any question of law of public importance, but when it is about any pre-Constitutional treaty, covenant etc, it must provide its opinion to the President?

How do I restructure the above question to make it easy to read? Also, I'm finding difficulty in such scenarios so please give few suggestions regarding this.

 

[Rover_KE]

What is the source of your quoted sentence, Meya?

 

[MeyaN]

A friend asked this. I quoted from my memory of it.

 

[teechar]

I quoted from [STRIKE]my memory[/STRIKE] what I remembered of it.

Well then you should be able to write it in a simpler way!

 

[Rover_KE]

You have a remarkable memory!

 

[GoesStation]

But not quite remarkable enough. The only documents of significance that I know of which were pre-Constitutional were "The Declaration of Independence" and "The Articles of Confederation". Ask your friend to repeat the question and then return.

You're writing from an American perspective. Many other countries, including the OP's home country, also have constitutions.