Request for Review, Legal Code sec. 1.2 and 1.3

[Grosseschnauzer]

I am requesting a judicial inquiry by the Court on the constitutionality of certain lists contained in the Legal Code in view of the Court's judgment in "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r Stark on the Minor Error Clause," rendered on 15 March 2013.
This inquiry is directed at both Section 1.1, Clauses 4 and 5, and Section 1.2, Clauses 8 and 10, as added to Chapter 1 of the Legal Code by an amendment adopted on or about 6 January 2014.

The provisions at issue in context are as follows:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Balder and Europeia.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

In both instances, the Speaker is authorized to enact amendments to the Legal Code by "updat[ing] the preceding as appropriate."

However, as the Court noted in its decision on the minor error clause in the preamble to the Legal Code[1], the Constitution specifies a certain procedure for the amendment of the Legal Code in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, in particular:

Article 2. The Regional Assembly

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.
8. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

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 officers 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 any legally mandated endorsement limit.
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 shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for the Regional Assembly to delegate its lawmaking power "as appropriate" to the sole discretionary power of the Speaker. Nor is there a provision in the Constitution that permits an implied discretionary power for the Speaker to amend the Legal Code "as appropriate."

This view is consistent with the Court's decision of 15 March 2013 which held the "minor errors" clause in the preamble of the Legal Code as an unconstitutional delegation of the lawmaking power to the Speaker, although that provision contained a requirement that such minor errors were to be corrected at the direction of the Court and if no member of the Regional Assembly had objected within 5 days. If anything, the provisions in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 do not even contain those limitations on the unfettered discretionary power given to the Speaker in the minor errors clause, so if anything, petitioner contends that the Chapter 1 provisions are even more clearly a violation of Article 2, Clause 2 and Article 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution than the minor errore clause that was previously held unconstitutional by the Court. [2]

Petitioner would further suggest that the procedure at issue from Section 1.1 and Section 1.2 of the Legal Code is at variance with the guarantees and limitations contained in Clauses 5, 9, 10, and 11 of the Bill of Rights since they do not authorize amendment of the Legal Code without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, potentially present circumstances that deny equal treatment and equal protection of the laws, and may constitute action that disregards the express requirements of the fundamental laws of The North Pacific.

Petitioner therefore requests the Court to conduct a judicial inquiry as to the constitutionality of Section 1.1, Clauses 4 and 5, and Section 1.2, Clauses 8 and 10, of Chapter 1 of the Legal Code, and to determine that the procedures described in those provisions be held unconstitutional, and therefore null and void and without any legal effect.


______________
[1] The Preamble to the Legal Code provides that:

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.

[2] For reasons unknown to petitioner, the language of the "minor errors" clause has not been stricken from the official text of the Legal Code, and it is unclear whether such action was ordered by the Court in its earlier decision, or if it can be done by a Court order now, or requires legislation to be enacted by the Regional Assembly in strict conformance to the provisions of Article 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

 

[Eluvatar]

I would like to submit a brief regarding this matter tomorrow.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This request is denied, on the grounds that the petitioner does not have standing in this issue, not being personally affected by the law or policy he has asked the Court to review.

1. Any Nation may petition the Court for a review of government policy or law, but only those who the Court deem to have standing in a case will have their petition accepted. Standing shall, for the purposes of these rules, be defined as being personally affected by the policy or law currently in effect.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have standing because the law(s) being challenged are part of the Criminal Code, to which I am subject as a citizen of The North Pacific, and because of my responsibility as a member of the Regional Assembly in the body's exercise of lawmaking powers.

The issues have recurred, and are likely to recur in the future unless the practice is scruntized by the Court.

I therefore request reconsideration of the denial that I lack standing as a member of the Regional Assembly because of the role of lawmaking collectively exercised by the Regional Assembly.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I do not deny that you are concerned by the law as a member of the RA. However, general concern does not equate to being personally affected by it. I will not reconsider.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I do not deny that you are concerned by the law as a member of the RA. However, general concern does not equate to being personally affected by it. I will not reconsider.

With respect, Mr. Chief Justice, the petitioner is not arguing for "general concern", he is an affected party because he is a responsible legislator. He is the party whose powers are being infringed by unconstitutional delegation to the head of branch, allegedly.

Please reconsider?

 

[punk d]

I find the determination that the petitioner does not have standing as odd. Now, me, a former citizen would have no standing in this matter and indeed my comments could (some would say should) be ignored. But, indulge me for a moment.

Grosse is raising an issue concerning the powers granted to the Speaker (as stated in the Legal Code) and whether those powers coincide with a previous court ruling citing a few other clauses of the Legal Code which seem to contradict the Speaker's power to "update the preceding clause as appropriate".

As a member of the Regional Assembly, he along with other legislators are tasked with enacting, amending, and repeal the Legal Code. The law pertaining to the Speaker's 'update' powers allows the speaker to amend, repeal, and enact changes to the Legal Code, which is a power of the Regional Assembly of which Grosse is a member.

One often argues that the court takes liberal or narrow views of personally affected, but in refusing to hear this review the court appears to be saying, "if a Regional Assembly member is directly affected by an issue, this does not meet the personally affected criterion."

I would echo the sentiment of others to reconsider the court's original position on this review request.

But as I said, I am just a former citizen and I certainly have no standing to request reviews from this court. Just adding in my two dimes.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

In view of the support of others concerning this request for review, I hereby renew my requesr as shown in the opening post of this thread.

In order to fashion any legislative remedy it is necessary to have the Court's evaluation of the issues raised in this request. I want to avoid any unneeded legislation on the conflict between the court's earlier opinion and the current text of the legal code.