Request for review: constitutionality of minor error provision

[r3naissanc3r]

May it please the Court,

I wish to submit a request for review of the constitutionality of the following provision included in the opening paragraph of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.

[...] If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days. [...]

I shall refer to this provision in the following as the "minor error provision", for brevity.

In particular, I request that the Court examine the compatibility of the minor error provision with Article 2, Clause 2 and Article 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution of The North Pacific, which I reproduce below for reference.

Article 2. The Regional Assembly
[...]
2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate
[...]
4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.

I shall jointly refer to these clauses in the following as the "legislative empowerment clauses (of the Constitution)", for brevity.

Taken together, the legislative empowerment clauses establish that the Regional Assembly and the Delegate can jointly amend legislation, and prescribes a specific procedure for doing so, in the means of a majority vote in the Regional Assembly, followed potentially by a decision by the Delegate to veto, then followed by an override vote. The minor error provision empowers under certain conditions two other offices, the Speaker and the Court, to jointly amend legislation, and to do so through a procedure alternative to that laid down by the legislative empowerment clauses.

At first reading, it would appear that the minor error provision and the legislative empowerment clauses are incompatible, which would render the minor error provision void due to constitutional supremacy (Article 6, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific). I contend that this apparent conflict is not logically irreconcilable, and that there exist possible interpretations of the legislative empowerment clauses that can resolve the conflict. I submit in particular the following two for the Court's consideration:

• The legislative empowerment clauses do not grant exclusive legislative competence; they only grant such competence that may then be shared with other regional offices as determined by law. Similarly, though independently, the legislative empowerment clauses prescribe one procedure in which this competence can be exercised, which is not to be interpreted as the only such procedure permissible.
• The legislative empowermenet clauses, by granting legislative power to the Regional Assembly and Delegate, also empower them to legislate provisions for devolving this power to other regional offices. These may then also exercise legislative power at the discretion and under the restrictions set by the Regional Assembly and Delegate through legislation.

I therefore request that the Court:

• examine the applicability of the two interpretations I submitted above to the legislative empowerment clauses of the Constitution;
• determine whether, should either of these interpretations be found applicable, they make the minor error provision compatible with the legislative empowerment clauses; and
• review the constitutionality of the minor error provision, based on the outcome of the above two examinations, but also any other considerations that may be submitted through briefs or the Court may discover upon their own deliberation.

I thank the Court for their consideration.

Respectfully,
r3naissanc3r.

 

[Eluvatar]

I would submit as well the argument that as the minor errors provision requires unanimous consent, it effectually requires the approval of both the Regional Assembly as a whole by far more than a majority and the Delegate as well. Should the Delegate, or any other member of the Regional Assembly, object to the correction of the minor error then the correction may not take place.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

May it please the Court,

Taking into consideration the usual practice with previous requests for review, could I request an acknowledgement that the Court will review this matter?

Respectfully,
r3naissanc3r.

 

[Hileville]

The Court will review this matter. I missed the request when it was made or I would have responded sooner.

 

[Hileville]

The Court has come to a conclusion on this matter and will have a ruling in the next few days.

 

[Hileville]

Our decision will be delivered today.

 

[Hileville]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r on the Minor Error Clause​

Opinion drafted by Hileville, joined by Sanctaria and Gaspo​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r.

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

1. Requirements for membership in the Regional Assembly will be determined by law.
2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be a third of its membership.
5. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker every four months by a plurality vote.
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.
5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive offices may be regulated by law.
6. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate’s endorsement count.
8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.

The Court took into consideration the Preamble of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

In order to present a clearer and more comprehensible legal system, the Regional Assembly undertakes to keep the law of the North Pacific organized and clear. If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days. This Code will be divided into several Chapters, which may contain Sections. Every operative sentence must be a numbered clause, numbered within a Chapter. Clauses may be referenced by chapter and clause number..

The Court opines the following:

The Court reviewed the the sections of the Constitution as listed above as well as the Preamble of the Legal Code. The Court notes that the Constitution specifically grants power to amend a Law to the Regional Assembly which requires a majority vote. The Constitution also grants the Delegate the ability to veto said Amendment.

The Court is in unanimous agreement that the Constitution grants Amendment power to the Regional Assembly and also places the restriction of requiring a majority vote on said power. The Court reads the requirement of a "majority vote" as a vote in accordance with Regional Assembly Policy for holding votes. This specifically means that just giving a period of time to object to an amendment does not constitute a "majority vote".

Therefore the Court is in unanimous agreement that the section in the Legal Code's Preamble which gives the Speaker the power to amend a minor error on the published instructions of the Court is unconstitutional.