Article 5, the Constitution

Kingborough

Kingborough

TNPer
I would like to request a court ruling on the following bolded sections;

1. Any person who is a member of the Regional Assembly and meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Regional Assembly may exempt a person from Regional Assembly membership or any requirements by a two-thirds majority vote, and may terminate an exemption by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...

Do these clauses make the Regional Assembly able to vote a member into the SC without an application to the Security Council?
Yes/No, explanation please?

If the above is no, do these clauses make the Regional Assembly able to vote a reject application into the Security Council?
Yes/No, explanation please?

I would also have to request that Justice Blue Wolf sit out of this ruling, due to a conflict of interest.
 
This will be reviewed by the Court. All interested parties may post briefs on the matter over the next 36-48 hours.
 
SC member simply needs:
(A) endorsements
(B) influence
(C) RA membership
(D) SC application
(E) SC approval
(F) RA vote

Constitution Article V implies:
1. the need for (C); the need for (A) + (B) as set by the legal code; the need for (D)
2. RA can remove the need for (C) or (A) + (B)
3. the need for either (E) + (F) or just (F) in the case that (E) fails
4. n/a
5. n/a

The issue is whether (2.) implies RA can remove the need for (D) and clearly it does not.
 
Chasmanthe:
SC member simply needs:
(A) endorsements
(B) influence
(C) RA membership
(D) SC application
(E) SC approval
(F) RA vote

Constitution Article V implies:
1. the need for (C); the need for (A) + (B) as set by the legal code; the need for (D)
2. RA can remove the need for (C) or (A) + (B)
3. the need for either (E) + (F) or just (F) in the case that (E) fails
4. n/a
5. n/a

The issue is whether (2.) implies RA can remove the need for (D) and clearly it does not.
Click to expand...
The question is not just about D, but about D AND E and whether the RA can remove a requirement for either of those by a vote. Also reading it, F is more about the RA voting on all members even once approved by the SC - which does not appear to have been practiced.
 
Kingborough:
Chasmanthe:
SC member simply needs:
(A) endorsements
(B) influence
(C) RA membership
(D) SC application
(E) SC approval
(F) RA vote

Constitution Article V implies:
1. the need for (C); the need for (A) + (B) as set by the legal code; the need for (D)
2. RA can remove the need for (C) or (A) + (B)
3. the need for either (E) + (F) or just (F) in the case that (E) fails
4. n/a
5. n/a

The issue is whether (2.) implies RA can remove the need for (D) and clearly it does not.
Click to expand...
The question is not just about D, but about D AND E and whether the RA can remove a requirement for either of those by a vote. Also reading it, F is more about the RA voting on all members even once approved by the SC - which does not appear to have been practiced.
Click to expand...
The need for D and E, yes... but if E fails then D + F becomes sufficient anyway. So the emphasis is on the D.

The constitution is new it was passed on 22nd Aug and the last admissions to the SC were Enif on 11th Jul and Romanoffia on 20th Jul. So Blue Wolf II will be the first SC applicant subject to Article V.
 
I knew if I stick at this NationStates long enough someone would agree with me about something! :rofl:

You do not think what is required?
 
I do not think this required going before the court to ask for it's interpretation.

I agree with your interpretation of the legislation.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Kingborough on Article 5 of the Constitution​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Kingborough.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

Article 5 of the Constitution:
Article 5. The Security Council

1. Any person who is a member of the Regional Assembly and meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. The Regional Assembly may exempt a person from Regional Assembly membership or any requirements by a two-thirds majority vote, and may terminate an exemption by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Security Council may approve applicants by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may admit an approved applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not approve an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may admit the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be removed from the line of succession.
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

It is the belief of the Court that any person wishing to become a member of the Security Council must first apply to the Security Council, and that as part of this process their application will later be placed before the Regional Assembly. Whilst the wording of Article 5.1 does not explicitly state who the applicant is applying to, it is the belief of the court that it is made clear in Article 5.3 that the application is directed to the Security Council itself and not the Regional Assembly. Based upon this and on the wording of Article 5.3 - specifically the order in which the process is laid out within Article 5.3 - the court is of the opinion that the following procedure must be followed for applications to the Security Council;
  1. Application to the Security Council.
  2. Security Council vote on the application
  3. Regardless of the result of the Security Councils vote on the application - or if such does not occur within thirty days - the application is moved to the Regional Assembly to be voted upon.
  4. Regional Assembly vote on the application. Depending on the preceding stages, either a simple or a a two thirds majority will be required for the application to be approved.

In answer to the specific questions of the petitioner;

Do these clauses make the Regional Assembly able to vote a member into the SC without an application to the Security Council?

No. The exemptions detailed in Article 5.2 apply only to the requirements for membership set out in Article 5.1, not the application procedure established in Article 5.3.

If the above is no, do these clauses make the Regional Assembly able to vote a reject application into the Security Council?

Yes, the Regional Assembly is able to admit an applicant rejected by the Security Council to said body under the terms identified in Article 5.3, namely a two-thirds majority vote in favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top