[Chambers] [R4R] Reject Facism Law Conflicts with Regional Bill of Rights

Okay so now that the briefing period is over. This is where I currently stand after reading through the briefs. I believe that compelling interest in this case overcomes the shaky standing due to it being an actual question about a supposed contradiction between two parts of TNP Law, the previous R4R on Vice Delegate rejections wasn't about a question or an ambiguity but asking the court to create new law to override the legal code.

And how I currently see it is that it's not a violation of free speech due to it being an affirmative attachment to the Vice Delegate's Security Checking powers which is granted under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Article 2 Section 3 "Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law."
Article 2 Section 4 "The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote."

The Regional Assembly has used these parts of the constitution to set up the requirements that
1.) The Player must have a nation in the region.
2.) Players must pass a check by Forum Administration of their rules and criteria.
3.) Players must pass a check by the Vice Delegate and may be deny due to concerns for the security of the region.
3a.) Players rejected by the Vice Delegate are subject to review by the RA
4.) Players must not restricted by a court order limiting their rights.
5.) Players must follow the process administered by the Speaker to be admitted.

The Reject Fascism bill is a lawful extension of this by adding a modification to the Security Checks adding by law a clarification that associating with Fascism is a threat to the security of the region that the Vice Delegate must reject. This still being subject to review and affirmation by the Regional Assembly as a whole.
 
If we take the standing issue as El Fiji presents it, then it would be a shakey standing and we would have to have a strong regional interest in order to complete our review. However, I would find that El Fiji has standing as a Security Councilor to bring forth this request. Under 6.1.5. of the legal code, the Vice Delegate is required to consult the Security Council on the matter. Thus El Fiji will be required to take part in any rejection of a nation that is determined by the VD to be a fascist nation.

As to Regional Interest, Fiji presents a logical and rational argument that there is a clear conflict between this law and the Bill of rights. LRW request was effectively requesting the court to legislate from the bench using a weak and superficial argument. I would determine that there is a clearly an argument to be made that this law conflicts with the Bill of Rights. As such the court needs to step up and evaluate the situation.

As to the arguments presented. El Fiji's argument that there is an absolute right to free speech and expression is absurd and in direct conflict with several parts of the law and past rulings of the court. We have found several times that there is a limit to free speech and expression. We see it in the Criminal code, we see it in the Off Site authority section. We have upheld those laws. If we were to accept his argument, then there would be no need for the law as everyone could effectively do what they want. I would up hold this law. My reasoning is that this law, like the ones that I mentioned previously, are the lest restrictive means to protect region from harm. Region being the key word there. This law has a clearly established record linking a harm to the community if this expression was allowed in, vs the regions needs for free expression.

I want to go a bit more in depth with my reasoning, but I have some other task i need to address.
 
Apologies for the delay, I will be able to share my thoughts on this here in the next couple of days.
 
I figured my thoughts on the matter would be best shown through a markup draft based on how I current see the situation.

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
On the matter of the Reject Fascism Bill vs the Bill of Rights.
Opinion drafted by Lord Lore​
The Court took into consideration the inquire filed [here] by El Fiji Grande

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed [here] by Pallaith
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed [here] by Praetor

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific.
Article 1. Bill of Rights
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.
-
Article 2. The Regional Assembly
3. Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.
4. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific.
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.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.
Chapter 6: Regional Assembly Statutes
Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
6. The Vice Delegate will automatically fail any applicant who identifies as fascist or has engaged in the promotion of fascism.
8. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
9. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration prior ruling by the Court [here], [here], [here], & [here].

On Standing
The Court finds that as a member of the Security Council who would perceivable have to advise the Vice Delegate on the enforcement of Security based application denials, this affords them with enough standing to avoid dismissal.

On Compelling Interest
The Court finds that there is a valid argument to be made about the purported conflict between the Reject Fascism Bill and the Bill of Rights.

On the Conflict between the Reject Fascism Bill (R.F.B.) and Bill of Rights Clauses 2 and 9.
The Court finds that no conflict exists between these because the R. F. B. does not target the speech of those applying for citizenship. The R.F.B. specifically targets applicants for their affiliation with a group (Fascists) and upon the affirmative action of promoting said group. The bill that is now Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 6 in no way bares or punishes the ability of people to speak about anything only requiring a rejection for those who "identifies as" (affiliation) or "engages in the promotion" (action) neither of which are protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights contains 3 freedom of “speech”, “press” and “expression of religion” none of which protect the above, Clause 9 only refers to “fair and equal treatment and protection” in relation to the actions of members of the government, a law can not violate Clause 9 because it only guarantees that the government will apply the laws to any “nations of The North Pacific” in an “equal and fair” manner, it would only be a violation of Clause 9 to selectively enforce the laws as they are written.
 
I got stuff to add but I have been swamped this week. I can have it up this weekend.
 
I would expand on standing and compelling interest to include the courts thoughts on the arguments presented to us. We need to address El Fiji's presented standing and why we are relying on his Security Councilor status. I would accept his citizen argument as the compelling interest is sufficient to make up for any short comings. He presented a clear logical argument that the bill would violate the Bill of Rights.

I am ok with the compelling interest section.

I do not like basing this ruling on the Vice Delegates security check, I think that lets open too wide of a door to let the government violate the bill of rights.
El FIji Grande presents the argument that there is an absolute right to free
 
Dreadton:
I would expand on standing and compelling interest to include the courts thoughts on the arguments presented to us. We need to address El Fiji's presented standing and why we are relying on his Security Councilor status. I would accept his citizen argument as the compelling interest is sufficient to make up for any short comings. He presented a clear logical argument that the bill would violate the Bill of Rights.

I am ok with the compelling interest section.

I do not like basing this ruling on the Vice Delegates security check, I think that lets open too wide of a door to let the government violate the bill of rights.
El FIji Grande presents the argument that there is an absolute right to free
Click to expand...
I could write that out of my draft but I think you should reread it cuz I didn't actually base anything on the Security Check. The actual ruling part is entirely about three things.

1.) Deconstructing the R.F.B. to explain what it does and doesn't do. (Aka does go after Affiliation and Action not Speech)
2.) Looking at the relavent parts of Clause 2 of the B.o.R. and explaining why it doesn't apply. (Defends Speech and not Affiliation or Action)
3.) Looking at the relevant parts of Clause 9 of the B.o.R. and explaining why it doesn't apply. (Only states that Authorities treat everyone fairly and equally not that laws must do so)

The only time Security is mentioned is in the standing portion.
 
I agree with the argument presented regarding standing and compelling interest in this review.

I find the rest of the ruling fair and well founded.
 
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
On the matter of the Reject Fascism Bill vs the Bill of Rights.
Opinion drafted by Lord Lore​
The Court took into consideration the inquire filed [here] by El Fiji Grande

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed [here] by Pallaith
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed [here] by Praetor

Article 1. Bill of Rights
1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.
-
Article 2. The Regional Assembly
3. Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.
4. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific.
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.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.
Chapter 6: Regional Assembly Statutes
Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
6. The Vice Delegate will automatically fail any applicant who identifies as fascist or has engaged in the promotion of fascism.
8. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
9. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration prior ruling by the Court [here], [here], [here], & [here].

On Standing
The Court finds that while the stated standing provided of being a nation protected under the Bill of Rights is a weak claim to standing, none-the-less the compelling interest keeps the Request valid due to the implications of a violations of rights in the application process to attain citizenship.

On Compelling Interest
The Court finds that there is a valid argument to be made about the purported conflict between the Reject Fascism Bill and the Bill of Rights.

On the Conflict between the Reject Fascism Bill (R.F.B.) and Bill of Rights Clauses 2 and 9.
The Court finds that no conflict exists between these because the R.F.B. does not target the speech of those applying for citizenship. The R.F.B. specifically targets applicants for their affiliation with a group (Fascists) and upon the affirmative action of promoting said group. The bill that is now Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 6 in no way bars or punishes the ability of people to speak about anything only requiring a rejection for those who "identifies as" (affiliation) or "engages in the promotion" (action) neither of which are protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights contains 3 freedom of “speech”, “press” and “expression of religion” none of which protect the above, Clause 9 only refers to “fair and equal treatment and protection” in relation to the actions of members of the government, a law can not violate Clause 9 because it only guarantees that the government will apply the laws to any “nations of The North Pacific” in an “equal and fair” manner, it would only be a violation of Clause 9 to selectively enforce the laws as they are written.


There you go @Dreadton if you and @Oracle are happy with this version I feel alright posting this as it is. The only thing would be to add a ", Joined by" after the opinion drafted by when it is released.

Note: Edited at 4:55pm 8/15 to fix a minor spelling mistake.
Note2: Edited again at 8:26pm to fix missing quotes from the copying process.
 
Last edited:
Just a note, I edited my second draft cuz it was missing the quotes from the legal code, constitution and Bill of Rights. I forgot that XenForo has some sort of blood feud with nested quotes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top