Request for Review: Mandatory Ministers

[Blue Wolf II]

From the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Section 7.5: Mandatory Ministries
41. There will be an Executive Officer charged with the North Pacific's foreign affairs. They will ensure the continued operation of any embassies of the North Pacific and will report on events in the region.
42. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.
43. There will be at least one Executive Officer charged with focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to The North Pacific.

Section 7.1: Definitions
2. Executive Officers are government officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties.

Recently the Active Delegate has announced that he will take over the role of Minister of Defense himself, a role he was previously appointed to by the prior elected Delegate.

I ask the Courts to review the legality of such an action and consider the following sections from the Constitution:

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and its territories and hold the in-game position of delegate in The North Pacific.
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 or propose the repeal of existing treaties. No treaty will come into effect or be repealed unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may propose a declaration of war on foreign powers to the Regional Assembly. If it is approved by a two-thirds majority vote, a state of war will exist until it is repealed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
9. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.

The Delegate and Acting Delegate already have the powers of Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, and Internal Interest in their job description. The Mandatory Ministries Law mandates that the delegate appoints an Executive Officer and Section 7.1 of the Legal Code defines that individual as "government officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties".

The word "their" in 7.1 seems to refer to the Delegate or Acting Delegate. It is presented to the Court the argument that the law makes clear that the Delegate is to appoint others to the position of "Executive Officer" because the Delegate already is filling the role of Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, and Internal Interest of The North Pacific. They can not be double appointed to a role that they already functionally fulfill, and furthermore, the Executive Office can not assist the Delegate if the Executive Officer *is* the Delegate.

The spirit of the law is in clear violation, but I also contest that it's very clear that the letter of the law is being violated as well and request, with great respect, that the Courts review and rule on this matter.

 

[Lord Dominator]

I will accept this request for review.

@Halsoni is identified as a respondent.

The submission period for brief will be tentatively set at 7 day, given potential interest in this already expressed.

 

[Pallaith]

A Brief on the Court's Procedure in Accepting This Review

Submitted by Pallaith, in his capacity as a private citizen

I did intend to submit a brief in support of the challenged action the Court has decided to hear, but before I dive into the specifics, I wanted to address another important matter that is inherent in the way this request for review process has unfolded so far, and should be dealt with before any substantive arguments are made.

In accepting this request for review, the Court dispensed with quite a few years of procedural precedent, in accepting a request for review that did not comport with the template the Court has directed all prior petitioners to utilize in such reviews, and in ignoring the question of standing. The Court also disregarded its own procedures.

The template has existed for nearly 11 years, and multiple requests for review have been denied in the past for not following the template in whole or in part. It is grossly unfair of the Court to have denied these prior requests but not this one, without having announced a change in procedure or modification to the template. As an aside, I would also note this petitioner has previously had a request for review declined and resubmitted it using the template, under apparent duress, and should therefore have knowledge of this process.

The question of standing is a crucial one and the number one reason these requests are denied. Even if the petitioner had filed this correctly (he did not), and even if filing it incorrectly was irrelevant (it is not), the Court ought to have recognized that the petitioner has no standing to bring this question. Perhaps some standing could have been asserted, if the proper procedure were followed, but it is not apparent what the standing of this observer is.

Most damning, the Court has neglected Chapter 4, Section 2 of its own procedures, which state that:

1. All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists.

A template clearly exists, and was not utilized. The Court should have rejected this request for review, and I ask that the full panel of justices consider whether this review is properly in order.

 

[Lord Dominator]

The full panel has reviewed the objection brought by Pallaith and has unanimously agreed that the acceptance was indeed done in error. The request for review is thus rejected. The petitioner is free to resubmit a template-compliant version.