- TNP Nation
- Kranostav
- Discord
- Tlomz
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Previous court ruling number 49, On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
The second condition on governmental action the ruling offers,
In the final paragraph of the ruling, the court offers a set of stipulations governing the loss of citizenship with respect to nations ejected and/or banned, specifically
First, the action applies arbitrary restrictions to Section 6.2, Clause 15 that are not substantiated by any court rulings or complimentary law. Further, to illustrate their faulty logic, these restrictions allow for the theoretical case of an ejected citizen maintaining their citizenship while never returning to the region by asserting that their departure was involuntary without considering that their refusal to return is voluntary. While one might find it useful to conditionally prevent ejections from stripping citizenship and residency status from members of our community, the court cannot opine those restrictions into existence without proper and detailed justification. The very existence of these court established restrictions hampers the Regional Assembly’s ability to further legislate on this issue, thus violating Article 2, Clauses 4 and 5 of the Constitution, listed above. The court is fundamentally not a legislative body and cannot offer opinions not supported by existing legislation and/or previous rulings. This is especially relevant as the ruling does not obviously attempt to offer commentary on what those restrictions were derived from beyond “Thus, under the law as it currently stands” which is not an adequate explanation and only serves to further confuse future court justices and regional assembly members.
Second, the action contradicts already existing law regarding the citizenship of ejected and/or banned citizens as established in Section 8.2, Clause 8 of the Legal Code, as shown above. Section 8.2, Clause 8 explicitly establishes that citizenship of ejected and/or banned citizens is only protected from provisions set forth in Section 6.2, Clause 15 for three (3) days after the conclusion of the ‘Emergency Situation’. Upon the conclusion of that three day waiting period in which the ejected nation has not returned, the Speaker is empowered to remove citizenship from the ejected nation in accordance with Section 6.2, Clause 15 of the legal code.
The above provides multiple avenues through which the ruling fails to pass muster and is complimented by briefs presented in section 6 of this request for review.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is being proposed in this R4R.
Previous court ruling number 77, On the Reconsideration of the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, serves as an example of the court striking down only a portion of a previous ruling.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
Standing derived by my position as Court Examiner, defined in Legal Code Section 3.6, Clause 34: "The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court."
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
This request intends to address a faulty ruling that over extended the reach of the court onto topics not directly presented by the R4R and in a way that is not supported by currently existing law. It is in the interest of the region to address faulty or unsubstantiated rulings as the existence of those rulings can harm the legitimacy future rulings and legislation which rely on their accuracy. Further, those incorrect rulings harm the integrity of the standing precedent that has been developed over years of court rulings. This, in combination with the fact that one portion of the target ruling has been explicitly codified, present an obvious need for immediate court action.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
On the Supremacy of Legal Code Chapter 8 During Emergency Situations
Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Clause 11 states the following,
The Regional Assembly, being the legislative body that represents the nations of The North Pacific, established Chapter 8 of the Legal Code, “Emergency Situations”. This Chapter serves to define various emergencies and conditionally empower the government during emergency situations. This satisfies both required checks for government action as the laws in Chapter 8 were established with consent of the majority of the regional legislative body and the process to establish them in the legal code satisfies the reasonable consistency with Constitutional provisions.
Given government actions during an emergency situation are only beholden to the Constitution, the laws established within Chapter 8, for the purpose of use during Emergency Situations, supersede all other portions of the Legal Code, thus allowing Chapter 8 provisions on citizenship to modify or otherwise restrict the application of Chapter 6 provisions.
On Protections Offered by the Constitution Against Wanton Ejection
Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Clauses 5 and 8 state the following,
While these clauses explicitly protect any resident from an unjust ejection, so that it may be challenged and reversed in all due course, they do not protect residents from losing any of their residency based statuses, such as citizenship, when ejected. Ideally, any unjust ejection is dealt with expeditiously so as to minimize harm to the victim, however again, there is no legally established protection for their resident and citizen statuses (excluding Legal Code Section 8.2 Clause 8 which limits the application of provisions established in Section 6.2). The Constitution explicitly hands the ability to legislate on citizenship requirements, and their implied protections, to the Regional Assembly via Article 2: The Regional Assembly.
If we delve into the Legal Code, Section 6.2 provides the Speaker with conditions for removal of Citizenship. Examining Clause 16, the Speaker will remove citizenship from any citizens "whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories leave". This provision is limited during Emergency Situations by Section 8.2 Clause 8, as previously discussed in the main body of the R4R. Beyond this singular limitation during an Emergency Situation, no other limitations exist in the Constitution or Legal Code. The only piece of standing law or legal precedent that prevents citizenship from being removed due to ejection is the target ruling of this R4R, whose issues have been detailed in the main body.
Previous court ruling number 49, On Regional Officers Banning Nations during NationStates Events.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Constitution - Article 1: Bill of Rights:
Constitution - Article 2: The Regional Assembly:
Legal Code - Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship:
The target ruling attempts to reinforce the ability of government authorities to act during 'Emergency Situations', as defined in Chapter 8 of the legal code. In doing so, the court broadly interprets portions of Legal Code Section 8.2: Disease Control (at the time of ruling, provisions found in chapter 8 of the legal code were found in chapter 9 of the legal code) and Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship, offering conditions for governmental action and a sweeping stipulation on the loss of citizenship.Legal Code - Section 8.2: Disease Control:
The second condition on governmental action the ruling offers,
has been explicitly codified under Section 8.2, Clause 6 of the Legal Code as shown above. This clause, when considered in combination with Section 8.2 Clause 5, shown above, adequately cover the second condition provided by the target ruling. Thus, rendering this specific portion of the ruling obsolete and therefore should be struck out.
In the final paragraph of the ruling, the court offers a set of stipulations governing the loss of citizenship with respect to nations ejected and/or banned, specifically
These stipulations appear to attempt to combine certain provisions established in Section 6.2 Clause 16 of the Legal Code, shown above, with restrictions on how ejections apply to citizenship removal as per Section 6.2 Clause 15 of the legal code, shown above, and apply them to emergency situations. This action is problematic for two primary reasons.
First, the action applies arbitrary restrictions to Section 6.2, Clause 15 that are not substantiated by any court rulings or complimentary law. Further, to illustrate their faulty logic, these restrictions allow for the theoretical case of an ejected citizen maintaining their citizenship while never returning to the region by asserting that their departure was involuntary without considering that their refusal to return is voluntary. While one might find it useful to conditionally prevent ejections from stripping citizenship and residency status from members of our community, the court cannot opine those restrictions into existence without proper and detailed justification. The very existence of these court established restrictions hampers the Regional Assembly’s ability to further legislate on this issue, thus violating Article 2, Clauses 4 and 5 of the Constitution, listed above. The court is fundamentally not a legislative body and cannot offer opinions not supported by existing legislation and/or previous rulings. This is especially relevant as the ruling does not obviously attempt to offer commentary on what those restrictions were derived from beyond “Thus, under the law as it currently stands” which is not an adequate explanation and only serves to further confuse future court justices and regional assembly members.
Second, the action contradicts already existing law regarding the citizenship of ejected and/or banned citizens as established in Section 8.2, Clause 8 of the Legal Code, as shown above. Section 8.2, Clause 8 explicitly establishes that citizenship of ejected and/or banned citizens is only protected from provisions set forth in Section 6.2, Clause 15 for three (3) days after the conclusion of the ‘Emergency Situation’. Upon the conclusion of that three day waiting period in which the ejected nation has not returned, the Speaker is empowered to remove citizenship from the ejected nation in accordance with Section 6.2, Clause 15 of the legal code.
The above provides multiple avenues through which the ruling fails to pass muster and is complimented by briefs presented in section 6 of this request for review.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is being proposed in this R4R.
Previous court ruling number 77, On the Reconsideration of the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, serves as an example of the court striking down only a portion of a previous ruling.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
Standing derived by my position as Court Examiner, defined in Legal Code Section 3.6, Clause 34: "The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court."
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
This request intends to address a faulty ruling that over extended the reach of the court onto topics not directly presented by the R4R and in a way that is not supported by currently existing law. It is in the interest of the region to address faulty or unsubstantiated rulings as the existence of those rulings can harm the legitimacy future rulings and legislation which rely on their accuracy. Further, those incorrect rulings harm the integrity of the standing precedent that has been developed over years of court rulings. This, in combination with the fact that one portion of the target ruling has been explicitly codified, present an obvious need for immediate court action.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
On the Supremacy of Legal Code Chapter 8 During Emergency Situations
Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Clause 11 states the following,
The above clause establishes the ability for the government to act when invoked due to an emergency situation, as long as any of the actions pass two checks. The first check is that any action must only be made with the express consent of the region, and the second check is that any action must be reasonably consistent with provisions set forth within the Constitution.
The Regional Assembly, being the legislative body that represents the nations of The North Pacific, established Chapter 8 of the Legal Code, “Emergency Situations”. This Chapter serves to define various emergencies and conditionally empower the government during emergency situations. This satisfies both required checks for government action as the laws in Chapter 8 were established with consent of the majority of the regional legislative body and the process to establish them in the legal code satisfies the reasonable consistency with Constitutional provisions.
Given government actions during an emergency situation are only beholden to the Constitution, the laws established within Chapter 8, for the purpose of use during Emergency Situations, supersede all other portions of the Legal Code, thus allowing Chapter 8 provisions on citizenship to modify or otherwise restrict the application of Chapter 6 provisions.
On Protections Offered by the Constitution Against Wanton Ejection
Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Clauses 5 and 8 state the following,
For the purposes of this brief as it relates to the request for review presented, Clause 5 serves to establish that all nations in The North Pacific and its territories have a fundamental right to not be abused by government and Clause 8 establishes that all ejections made by the government must be in line with the Constitution and Legal Code.
While these clauses explicitly protect any resident from an unjust ejection, so that it may be challenged and reversed in all due course, they do not protect residents from losing any of their residency based statuses, such as citizenship, when ejected. Ideally, any unjust ejection is dealt with expeditiously so as to minimize harm to the victim, however again, there is no legally established protection for their resident and citizen statuses (excluding Legal Code Section 8.2 Clause 8 which limits the application of provisions established in Section 6.2). The Constitution explicitly hands the ability to legislate on citizenship requirements, and their implied protections, to the Regional Assembly via Article 2: The Regional Assembly.
If we delve into the Legal Code, Section 6.2 provides the Speaker with conditions for removal of Citizenship. Examining Clause 16, the Speaker will remove citizenship from any citizens "whose registered nations in The North Pacific or one of its territories leave". This provision is limited during Emergency Situations by Section 8.2 Clause 8, as previously discussed in the main body of the R4R. Beyond this singular limitation during an Emergency Situation, no other limitations exist in the Constitution or Legal Code. The only piece of standing law or legal precedent that prevents citizenship from being removed due to ejection is the target ruling of this R4R, whose issues have been detailed in the main body.
