https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198447/ Thread here, discussion is open
[Private] R4R Regarding ""On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA"
- Thread starter Dreadton
- Start date
I agree with Zyvet’s brief. The decision was correct then and it would be correct now. The only thing I’m trying to figure out is to what degree this needs to be clarified, and to what degree any of it is defunct. I don’t think anything needs to be overturned. What are your initial thoughts?
That’s what I mean, I’m not sure where we even straighten anything out, or if it’s needed, but if we’re going to reconsider it we have to see where that may be relevant. I’ll take another look at it when I get some more time.
EDIT: So looking at the original ruling, we have a situation where the law change is identical to the ruling - so we should affirm the ruling and this time cite the legal code provision that echoes the Court's conclusion. We affirm the legal underpinning of the original decision, and we affirm the citizenship ruling and all of the precedent outlined by Zyvet. I see no text to strike out, nothing that is defunct. This is purely affirming what is already in place.
Last edited:
My opinion is as follows:
While it is true thatt the original matter has been codified into law, it should not mean that the R4R should be overturned or to be stricken down. The nature of the original R4R and the ruling on itself, and as Pallaith has pointed out, the very ruling was what was codified into the Legal Codel.
If we, the Court, have to strike down all of the different R4R that have been re-adapted into the legal system in the very same way that it has been ruled, it will take too much time and effort, and it does serve as help in one thing to the current legal text; Interpretation.
The ruling goes in depth to see how that conclusion came to be, and it's a guiding stone for future rulings on the matter and how to interpret the current law with the help of the ruling. While it's true that the main object shall now be the Legal Code or Bill of Rights, it's also of juditial weight the fact that the matter had been in discussion before, and how it came to be.
If at any moment the legislation should change on the matter, it would be indeed something to consider, but as it stands it has still legal use, and informative use.
While it is true thatt the original matter has been codified into law, it should not mean that the R4R should be overturned or to be stricken down. The nature of the original R4R and the ruling on itself, and as Pallaith has pointed out, the very ruling was what was codified into the Legal Codel.
If we, the Court, have to strike down all of the different R4R that have been re-adapted into the legal system in the very same way that it has been ruled, it will take too much time and effort, and it does serve as help in one thing to the current legal text; Interpretation.
The ruling goes in depth to see how that conclusion came to be, and it's a guiding stone for future rulings on the matter and how to interpret the current law with the help of the ruling. While it's true that the main object shall now be the Legal Code or Bill of Rights, it's also of juditial weight the fact that the matter had been in discussion before, and how it came to be.
If at any moment the legislation should change on the matter, it would be indeed something to consider, but as it stands it has still legal use, and informative use.
Behold my draft opinion:
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by TlomzKrano.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.
The Court took into consideration prior rulings by the Court here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The Court opines the following:
On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.
On the Court’s Prior Ruling
The Court Examiner asks that this Court take another look at its decision related to rejected applicants for the Regional Assembly, which was made while a significant change in the Legal Code was passed by the Regional Assembly that established a mechanism for the Regional Assembly to overturn rejections for applicants allowing them to be admitted as citizens. He asserts that because this provision exists, the Court can render the previous ruling defunct as it is no longer necessary for our ruling to stand given the law and our ruling are in accord. However, the previous ruling was made with this law change already having been done, and our ruling is consistent with the law as it exists today. It may be redundant, but the law has not rendered our decision obsolete, especially as we made this ruling amid the change that prompted the Court Examiner to make this request. Additionally, as petitioner Zyvetskistaahn notes in his brief, is also concerned with the Vice Delegate’s role in the matter, and the Legal Code continues not to address this. It is this ruling which eliminates the Vice Delegate’s discretion in whether to reverse a previous rejection, and why it is still not permissible for the Vice Delegate to do so.
The ruling in question also determined that the citizen impacted by this question, Treize_Dreizehn, would maintain his citizenship (then referred to as Regional Assembly membership) despite recognizing that strictly speaking, that status was improperly granted. The Court considered the circumstances surrounding his status, the length of time it had gone on, and his participation in many aspects of regional governance and activity and concluded it would be more destructive to declare all of that illegitimate, and cascade into other areas affecting the community. This reasoning, as petitioner Zyvetskistaahn points out, has been utilized in several subsequent cases where it was found that matters had been improperly done and we had to decide whether to negate what had occurred or to explain the error, hold that it was an error and prevent its continuation, while allowing the impact of that error to lie. The fact that Treize_Dreizehn is no longer involved in the community does not render our decision as far as he is concerned defunct. It is very much a living and crucial precedent for resolving ongoing errors that are later discovered and addressed. Our decisions will often require answering specific questions involving individuals or a very narrow issue, and the solutions may not remain fresh or relevant years later after the law changes and our thinking on issues changes as well. But to any extent they provide guidance for resolving other questions and providing solutions utilizing the same logic, they transcend their specific moment in time, and we would not strike them from the record.
As we held in our decision On Defunct Rulings, the principle of recognizing defunct language in our rulings is intended to eliminate scenarios where the controlling law on a matter is this Court’s opinion and it contradicts the law as written. When the law has changed to the extent that it supersedes our decision in whole or in part, even if that decision was correct at the time, that is when we take the step of declaring any part of it to be defunct. The scenarios we intend to guard against in doing so are those where citizens or government officials would be seemingly violating the law simply by acting according to the law as it exists today, if our controlling ruling on the matter says something else. It is not to strike out portions of decisions just because they resolve questions that would not be asked today because the law is formulated differently, and it is not to eliminate a redundant, yet correct, conclusion that is identical to the existing law. Put another way, if the Regional Assembly amends the law to establish a new rule or expand on an existing one that was previously vague or unspecific in order to answer a question differently than this Court, thereby contradicting us, they are creating the scenario where we would rule something as defunct. If they instead codify what this Court already says, or answer the question in an identical fashion, there is obviously no contradiction, just one form of law that will be found to be supreme over the other, and our ruling would not be defunct. Contradictions should be eliminated and when the Regional Assembly answers a question or responds to our rulings by amending the law, that law should take precedence.
Holding
We affirm the ruling On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA in its entirety. Chapter 6 of the Legal Code provides for a mechanism for the Regional Assembly, and the Regional Assembly alone, to reverse rejections of citizenship applications by the Vice Delegate. Our consideration of exceptions to improperly sworn citizens or officials due to unintended errors that are discovered later remains subject to the circumstances of the individuals impacted by such errors, and our decision to allow Treize_Dreizehn to continue to be a citizen despite the process by which his citizenship was obtained being improper will also continue to stand unchanged or removed from our record.
On the Court’s Prior Ruling On the Reconsideration of the Powers of Election Commissioners
In light of the Court’s conclusions in this case, it is necessary to look again at one of our more recent decisions. The Election Commission is outlined in much greater detail than it was at the time of the decision we reconsidered in On the Reconsideration of the Powers of Election Commissioners and in so doing the Regional Assembly defined the powers of the Election Commission in such a way that they codified this Court’s ruling. This does not make our original ruling defunct, but would necessitate our affirming it. This is also true when the ruling answered a specific question about how an election at the time was handled, something that the Court should also not consider to be defunct. We hereby overturn this ruling in its entirety. The ruling On the Powers of Election Commissioners is instead affirmed.
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on the Reconsideration of the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA
Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Pallaith, joined by Justices Dreadton and Vivanco
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on the Reconsideration of the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA
Opinion drafted by Chief Justice Pallaith, joined by Justices Dreadton and Vivanco
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by TlomzKrano.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Legal Code of The North Pacific.
Chapter 6: Regional Assembly Statutes:
The Court took into consideration prior rulings by the Court here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The Court opines the following:
On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.
On the Court’s Prior Ruling
The Court Examiner asks that this Court take another look at its decision related to rejected applicants for the Regional Assembly, which was made while a significant change in the Legal Code was passed by the Regional Assembly that established a mechanism for the Regional Assembly to overturn rejections for applicants allowing them to be admitted as citizens. He asserts that because this provision exists, the Court can render the previous ruling defunct as it is no longer necessary for our ruling to stand given the law and our ruling are in accord. However, the previous ruling was made with this law change already having been done, and our ruling is consistent with the law as it exists today. It may be redundant, but the law has not rendered our decision obsolete, especially as we made this ruling amid the change that prompted the Court Examiner to make this request. Additionally, as petitioner Zyvetskistaahn notes in his brief, is also concerned with the Vice Delegate’s role in the matter, and the Legal Code continues not to address this. It is this ruling which eliminates the Vice Delegate’s discretion in whether to reverse a previous rejection, and why it is still not permissible for the Vice Delegate to do so.
The ruling in question also determined that the citizen impacted by this question, Treize_Dreizehn, would maintain his citizenship (then referred to as Regional Assembly membership) despite recognizing that strictly speaking, that status was improperly granted. The Court considered the circumstances surrounding his status, the length of time it had gone on, and his participation in many aspects of regional governance and activity and concluded it would be more destructive to declare all of that illegitimate, and cascade into other areas affecting the community. This reasoning, as petitioner Zyvetskistaahn points out, has been utilized in several subsequent cases where it was found that matters had been improperly done and we had to decide whether to negate what had occurred or to explain the error, hold that it was an error and prevent its continuation, while allowing the impact of that error to lie. The fact that Treize_Dreizehn is no longer involved in the community does not render our decision as far as he is concerned defunct. It is very much a living and crucial precedent for resolving ongoing errors that are later discovered and addressed. Our decisions will often require answering specific questions involving individuals or a very narrow issue, and the solutions may not remain fresh or relevant years later after the law changes and our thinking on issues changes as well. But to any extent they provide guidance for resolving other questions and providing solutions utilizing the same logic, they transcend their specific moment in time, and we would not strike them from the record.
As we held in our decision On Defunct Rulings, the principle of recognizing defunct language in our rulings is intended to eliminate scenarios where the controlling law on a matter is this Court’s opinion and it contradicts the law as written. When the law has changed to the extent that it supersedes our decision in whole or in part, even if that decision was correct at the time, that is when we take the step of declaring any part of it to be defunct. The scenarios we intend to guard against in doing so are those where citizens or government officials would be seemingly violating the law simply by acting according to the law as it exists today, if our controlling ruling on the matter says something else. It is not to strike out portions of decisions just because they resolve questions that would not be asked today because the law is formulated differently, and it is not to eliminate a redundant, yet correct, conclusion that is identical to the existing law. Put another way, if the Regional Assembly amends the law to establish a new rule or expand on an existing one that was previously vague or unspecific in order to answer a question differently than this Court, thereby contradicting us, they are creating the scenario where we would rule something as defunct. If they instead codify what this Court already says, or answer the question in an identical fashion, there is obviously no contradiction, just one form of law that will be found to be supreme over the other, and our ruling would not be defunct. Contradictions should be eliminated and when the Regional Assembly answers a question or responds to our rulings by amending the law, that law should take precedence.
Holding
We affirm the ruling On the Permanence of Rejected Applications for the RA in its entirety. Chapter 6 of the Legal Code provides for a mechanism for the Regional Assembly, and the Regional Assembly alone, to reverse rejections of citizenship applications by the Vice Delegate. Our consideration of exceptions to improperly sworn citizens or officials due to unintended errors that are discovered later remains subject to the circumstances of the individuals impacted by such errors, and our decision to allow Treize_Dreizehn to continue to be a citizen despite the process by which his citizenship was obtained being improper will also continue to stand unchanged or removed from our record.
On the Court’s Prior Ruling On the Reconsideration of the Powers of Election Commissioners
In light of the Court’s conclusions in this case, it is necessary to look again at one of our more recent decisions. The Election Commission is outlined in much greater detail than it was at the time of the decision we reconsidered in On the Reconsideration of the Powers of Election Commissioners and in so doing the Regional Assembly defined the powers of the Election Commission in such a way that they codified this Court’s ruling. This does not make our original ruling defunct, but would necessitate our affirming it. This is also true when the ruling answered a specific question about how an election at the time was handled, something that the Court should also not consider to be defunct. We hereby overturn this ruling in its entirety. The ruling On the Powers of Election Commissioners is instead affirmed.
Last edited: