Request for Review on Speaker's Powers

Iro

Iro

TNPer
Recently in the Regional Assembly, there has been some turmoil as to if the Speaker is allowed to make limits on what people can say during a vote, and if they are allowed to disregard a vote because of it. Some, such as Grosseschnauzer, have argued that under the following in the Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
members should be ably to say whatever they think. However, it seems logical that commentary should not be allowed in a vote.

I would like to get this settled once and for all. If it please the Court, I request a Review on the Speaker of the Regional Assembly's power to limit voting.
 
Any party interested in submitting a brief on this matter may do so over the next 48 hours.

The use of purple text is reserved for the Chief Justice in this matter. All other use of purple text will be changed to the default board color. Thank you.
 
I would like to submit my argument;
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
Click to expand...
Under this clause of the constitution I hold the absolute right to create and administer rules where none yet exist at my discretion. You cannot interpret this clauses in any other manner.

On the matter of if this particular rules violate the bill of rights;

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...
Free speech has not been infringed, the right to free speech has been preserved and a special thread exists to express opinions.

The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.[/b]
Click to expand...
This clause clearly states that I may act as permitted in the constitution.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...
No right to vote has been infringed and I have equally enforced this rule therefore equal protection has not been lost.
 
If it so please the court. This is not so much a brief as a comment.

Mr Speaker your actions are legal and justifiable, but as Grosseschnauzer notes, the only accountability of the speaker is by a recall motion. Why do we have a constitution that says the right to free speech shall be encouraged by the governmental authorities of the region? Why do we have a constitution that says the right to free speech shall be encouraged by the governmental authorities of the region? Oops I said that twice, I guess it must be an important question.
 
I believe that King has pretty much covered the legal stuff. there is also the issue of respect for the position of speaker.

Where the laws of the region are silent, the speaker is allowed to set procedure. That is clear. Where the Speaker sets procedure, that ought to be respected by people - not out of respect for Kingborough, but out of respect for the Office of Speaker.

In the current situation what we have is Grosseschnauzer simultaneously trying to vote and flip the bird at the Speaker. This ought not to be supported by the Court.

However, there is also a wider issue alluded to by Chasmanthe: freedom of speech/expression. All i will say to this is that kingborough has worked hard to encourage debate in the debate thread; he just has not allowed the voting thread to be used for debate or campaigning. All I will say to this is that I trust the court will not interpret "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom to post anything I like, anywhere I like, any time I like."
 
Statement of the striking of Grosse's vote:

Vote discounted for continued attempts to antagonize and using colours and punctuation in a manner meant simply to attract attention. I request you begin to act your age. ~ The Speaker
Click to expand...

This is potentially a sticky issue - especially if anyone adopts the tactic to use it to alter the results of a vote for any arbitrary reason determined on the spot by the Speaker.

For instance, a Speaker could simply discount the votes of those RA members that disagree with his vote simply because the Speaker, being able to determine procedure, could determine that voting contrary to the desires of the speaker is indecorous. And, using Flemingovia's argument on the matter (the first part) the Speaker could 'legally' do exactly that as a matter of the speaker being the sole arbiter of procedure. Not a good precedent to set.

Taken to an extreme, one could say that the Speaker presumes that he knows the thoughts and motivations of Grosse and made the psychic determination that Grosse's choice of color and size of font was specifically intended to antagonize the Speaker personally.

Either way, The discounting of an RA member's vote in such an important matter, regardless of whether or not it would affect the outcome of that vote sends a chilling message to the RA on any and all votes. That message could be (and has been) construed by some RA members that if you go against what is promoted as an inevitable outcome of a vote, your vote may be discounted if you voice any opinion on that vote anywhere.

Just saying.
 
I wish not to push the Court, but
  1. Is a decision being made?
  2. If not, are we waiting until the judicial elections are over?
Muchas gracias.
 
Iro:
I wish not to push the Court, but
  1. Is a decision being made?
  2. If not, are we waiting until the judicial elections are over?
Muchas gracias.
Click to expand...
This is being discussed. The Court took a brief recess during the campaigns.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Iro on the Speaker's Power to Restrict the Format of Votes​

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

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

Article 2.6 of the Constitution:
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Speaker by making these policies was within their powers as laid out by the Constitution and not in violation of the Bill of Rights. The Court looked extensively at the Section 10 of the Bill of Rights and determined that the rules that were adopted still allowed the protection of each nations right to vote. We are aware the Speaker discounted votes that were not in line with the adopted polices but again the voters that lodged an invalid vote were still given the right to vote in the matter. It is our belief that once these rules were adopted they were enforced evenly and fairly.

The Court thanks all those involved for their patience while we made a determination in this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top