[Private] - Lingering request for review RA Admission issue

To give my own thoughts, I think there are two possible interpretations of the law.

1) The law at the time of Douria's acceptance did not allow any rejection to be overturned, and thus he is not a valid RA member.

2) The law at the time of Douria's acceptance did not prevent any VD from overturning any rejection, and it still does not do so.

There are clear arguments to be made in favor of both interpretations, and I'm having a really hard time excluding either one. It was never the intent of the RA to make rejection a permanent bar on membership, but it was also never its intent to allow a single person to overrule the will of the region as expressed in a vote. The recent amendment to the law indicates the RA's opinion on what procedure for reversing a rejection it believes is proper, but it doesn't specifically prohibit the VD from overturning a rejection on their own.

I'm really torn here. They both seem valid and invalid in different ways, and there has to be more legal basis to make this decision than simply whether we want Douria in the RA or not when we're done.
 
I agree. This is a tough one. I don't think that any rejection of RA membership should be permanent as an automatic response and that the RA should have the authority to override the VD.

The trick here is to come up with a decision, and quick, that will satisfy both interpretation or neither interpretation.

We could do something somewhat radical and precedent setting by actually dealing with 'original intent'. Also, we might consider that a decision as such made by the VD that cannot be over-turned by the RA is constitutionally dodgy. If the RA approves RA membership and the VD rejects it then the RA could conceivably pass a bill into law specifically dealing with a specific RA applicant that would then have to be signed or vetoed by the Delegate.

Also, since the Vice Delegate's decision to reject an applicant to the RA, such a decision should in principle be made based upon evidence to that effect. In which instance the Vice Delegate would be subject to a FOIA request and/or be compelled to give his reasoning for a rejection (under the principle of due process which as it relates to a possible denial of due process or rights of the applicant). And, if it could be proved that the VD made such a rejection for arbitrary and capricious reasons or without any real legal evidence it would open the VD up for any number of criminal violations under the legal code (malfeasance, gross negligence, violation of civil liberties, etc.).

Either way, I think we need to knock this one out before voting begins or before it ends just to get it out of the way in a timely fashion.
 
To be honest, I don't think we're obligated to render this on Punk's timetable. Despite the length of time that has elapsed since it was filed, the issue has barely been discussed and it's really a very tricky legal one - at least Fraud and FOIA were pretty straightforward, and even they took time to get done. It would be ideal to get this done soon, yes, but given the trickiness I'd rather we spend a little more time and make sure we get it correct.

I'm really not finding much guidance in the Constibillocode about which way to fall, though. There's not really any relevant bits of the Constitution or Bill of Rights - I really think it does come down to whether we believe that right now the Vice Delegate has the power to admit a previously rejected applicant to the RA unilaterally.

If no, then he couldn't before. If yes, then he could. And the law is vague.
 
Sorry for the delay on my part. This isn't a matter that I'm particularly familiar with, and reading the thread hasn't helped much. Is there a quick explanation for what the situation is? I'll go back and read through the threads over the next couple days as well.
 
When sanc was VD, he denied douria RA membership. The RA upheld the rejection. When DD became VD, he revoked the denial and Zyvet admitted Douria into the RA. Zyvet then filed the request to determine if DD had the power to do that. Since then, the law has been amended to give the RA the power to override a rejection.

Based on the wordings, I don't think we can rule that DD had the power to do that and no longer does. I think the only options are that he never had it or that he still doesm
 
I tend to agree. The Vice Delegate cannot revoke an RA decision since the RA has the authority to override the VD.
 
Well, it does *now*, since the law was amended. Are you saying you think that DD never had that authority? If so, and if Ator agrees, I can write up a ruling. Or if you think he did/does, I can write that one up instead. :P
 
Oh, I think the law is quite contradictory in and of itself so as to make the request moot. :lol:

And frankly, I'm getting highly annoyed at Punk Ds antics demanding the RA to pass a resolution which effectively orders the Court to decide the matter in his favor.

Since Punk D is trying to force a snap decision, and if we wanted to be a real set of unmitigated bastards (and well within our legal rights to be), we could just reject the request because he filed a clarification of a law that has been changed and the complaint is not relevant to the current law, and/or the law is so upgefucked as to be contradictory, we could order the RA to re-write it and solve the ambiguity.

Either way, no matter what we do, Punk D will need his diapers changed because nothing we do will satisfy is indignation that he cannot force the court to bend to his will. :lol:

His ire needs to be directed towards another target (meaning the RA) if not for practical terms but for entertainment value.
 
Well, he didn't file the original request, Zyvet did. And we really do need to rule on whether DD was within his rights or not.

So, show of hands from all of us. If you think that the VD had and still has the power to accept previously rejected members unilaterally, say oogabooga. If you think the VD didn't and doesn't have the power to do so, say arglelblargle. If you can't make up your mind, say higgledypiggledy.

As of right now, I am solidly higgledypiggledy. :P
 
I' definitely leaning towards a firm higgledypiggledy.

Here's a creative approach to PDs request for review - since his client has neither been denied RA status nor had his rights curtailed in any fashion, there is no standing at all in this review. :P

Or, we could be bastards and just say, there is no standing in this case since the client in question is in the RA at this time.

Or, we could just reject the review and all future reviews not relating to a specific ongoing case. We are entitled to take either approach.

The real underlying issue here is disappointment on the part of a handful of people that are trying to invest the NPA with more raiders. :P


But seriously, this brings up a more important issue: are we even obligated to entertain requests for review of pacific laws? I think we are not as any such review or clarification not related to a specific case or ruling in a case is essentially asking the court to prejudicially narrow its scope of deliberations and give one side or the other an advantage in future cases.

Remember, when someone asks the Court for a review of a certain law, such an action usually is followed by a court filing, and such reviews are generally attempts to button-hole the court in such a way that the narrowing of a specific law generally forces the court to do the bidding of the applicant of such a review.

In previous sessions of the Court it has been discussed whether or not to entertain such 'reviews' at all.
 
Yes, but this request for review is solidly within the law. It was filed by Zyvet, not punk, and it's asking the court to review the actions of the Vice Delegate in admitting Douria to the RA. As Speaker of the RA, Zyvet incontrovertibly has standing to request the review, and the constitution grants a broad freedom for citizens to contest the actions of government officials.

So, we do need to decide this. Ator, what do you think?

Edit: Additionally, dismissing this request now will be, in essence, confirming that the VD has the power to do what he did. If we want to establish that, we ought to do so explicitly and not by default.
 
SillyString:
Yes, but this request for review is solidly within the law. It was filed by Zyvet, not punk, and it's asking the court to review the actions of the Vice Delegate in admitting Douria to the RA. As Speaker of the RA, Zyvet incontrovertibly has standing to request the review, and the constitution grants a broad freedom for citizens to contest the actions of government officials.

So, we do need to decide this. Ator, what do you think?

Edit: Additionally, dismissing this request now will be, in essence, confirming that the VD has the power to do what he did. If we want to establish that, we ought to do so explicitly and not by default.
Click to expand...
We need to be very narrow on the decision and avoid anything that might be construed as compelling the SC, which deliberations are equally FOIA exempt as the Courts are.

If we take the approach that the VD can arbitrarily decide who can and cannot be admitted to RA, then that could bring up the question as to whether the VD must explain his decisions. I also contend that the RA can over-rule the VD's decision. I also contend that the VD has no real authority to over-rule the RA decision concerning RA Admissions, nor can he simply void a previous VD's decisions nor the RA's decisions (which if possible, would give the VD the very real power to remove people from the RA after the fact if he deems them 'security risks' and to do so without any need to explain his actions.

I finally found the thread that BW is carping about and my comments about attempting raider infestation of the NPA and likely affectation of election results is not just a joke.
 
Erm, wrong issue, Roman. This isn't about the FOIA :P

But we didn't actually rule on whether the SC is subject to FOIA or not. I don't think it's as straightforward as a simple no.
 
SillyString:
Yes, but this request for review is solidly within the law. It was filed by Zyvet, not punk, and it's asking the court to review the actions of the Vice Delegate in admitting Douria to the RA. As Speaker of the RA, Zyvet incontrovertibly has standing to request the review, and the constitution grants a broad freedom for citizens to contest the actions of government officials.

So, we do need to decide this. Ator, what do you think?

Edit: Additionally, dismissing this request now will be, in essence, confirming that the VD has the power to do what he did. If we want to establish that, we ought to do so explicitly and not by default.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that this:

The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

implies that there's only one way to overturn a previous decision by the RA, and that's by a majority vote of the RA. What am I missing?
 
That that wasn't the law when DD acted. That clause didn't exist.

It also doesn't explicitly state that it's the only way. It gives the RA the power to overturn a rejection at any time, but doesn't say that the VD can't also withdraw their block as a method of changing someone's status. It's perfectly plausible to interpret the possible scenarios to admit someone as a) VD doesn't change their mind but the RA volunteers to override, or b) VD changes their mind.

I'm leaning away from that interpretation, though, on the principle that the VD should not be able to overrule the expressed will of the RA. But that's merely an inclination, not solid legal argument.
 
It's a higgledypiggledy from me then!

I'd lean towards anything that gives the will of the RA the benefit of the doubt, though.
 
Okay... here's a draft.

court-seal.png

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Zyvetskistaahn on rejected Regional Assembly applicants​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Crushing Our Enemies.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by PaulWallLibertarian42.

The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Treize_Dreizehn.

The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they do not pose a threat to regional security.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

This issue is a difficult one, and there is little legal guidance for the Court to fall back upon. While the law is quite clear on the procedure for rejecting an applicant from the Regional Assembly, it says nothing at all about reversing that decision - whether such is possible, or, if it is, the procedure by which to do so. The Court therefore found itself weighing two potential interpretations, both with elements of validity.[note]The Court considered a third possible interpretation - that, lacking any assignation of the power to reverse a previous decision, it was held by the Vice Delegate, but that that power was lost once it was assigned to the Regional Assembly by recent legislation, as seen in Chapter 6, Section 1, Clause 8. However, the Court ultimately rejected this as an option. The power to alter a previous decision can, in theory, be held by more than one party. It would not be impossible for both the Vice Delegate and the Regional Assembly to have separate legal paths to overturn an applicant's rejection. It is therefore the opinion of the court that the recent amendment to this law does not affect whether or not the Vice Delegate had and holds the power to admit rejected applicants.[/note]

The first possible interpretation is that, absent any specific permission, the Vice Delegate did not have the power to overturn a previous rejection, and that Treize Dreizehn's admission to the Regional Assembly was never legal.

The second possible interpretation is that, absent any specific prohibition, the Vice Delegate may unilaterally pass previously rejected applicants in the same manner that administrators can, and that Treize Dreizehn's admission to the Regional Assembly was fully legal. Additionally, lacking any specific prohibition, the Vice Delegate may continue to unilaterally allow previously rejected applicants admission to the Regional Assembly under current law.

Ultimately, however, there is a fundamental legal principle underlying this case which the Court must rely on. This principle is as follows: it is against the spirit of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Legal Code for the executive branch to hold unilateral authority to overrule the expressed will of the legislature.

In all cases where this power exists in part, it is tempered by balance. While the executive can veto legislation, that veto can be overridden by the Regional Assembly. While the executive can deny a FOIA request, that denial can be overturned by the Court.

To rule that, in this case, a member of the executive has the discretion to ignore the will of the RA as expressed in a legally binding vote would be to reject the balance of power between the branches.

In answer to Zyvetskistaahn's questions, the Court therefore rules:

If an applicant is rejected by the Vice Delegate and that rejection is upheld, the Speaker is required to deny that applicant at all future points at which they apply, unless the Regional Assembly has voted to overturn their rejection. It is not necessary for each application to be rejected and upheld separately; as noted, the language specifies an "applicant" and a single vote is sufficient. An upheld rejection may only be rescinded by a vote of the Regional Assembly or a ruling from the Court declaring the previous rejection invalid.

As for the specific case of Treize_Dreizehn, the Court rules that his original admission to the Regional Assembly was not lawful. However, over the past four months he has acted in nothing but good faith. He has been a productive member of the RA, has voted on legislation and run in elections, and has served admirably in the Attorney General's office. Should the Court rule that these associated posts, votes, and actions are ex post facto unlawful, legally speaking, it would simultaneously be required to order a recount of all such legislative, non-legislative, and electoral votes, as well as a review of all actions taken as a government official and, potentially, a reopening of voting for any election in which Treize was a candidate. Such alteration of accepted fact is neither practical, possible, nor permitted by the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, Treize_Dreizehn's membership in the Regional Assembly is not revoked. He may continue to serve as a full-fledged member, entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other member. However, his original rejection by Sanctaria was upheld by the Regional Assembly, and the recent motion to overturn that rejection failed. If Treize's membership in the Regional Assembly is renounced or allowed to lapse through normal channels, he will not be able to rejoin until his rejection is overridden by a majority vote of the RA.

The Court would additionally like to apologize to Treize for the length of time it took for this issue to be resolved, and for the bureaucratic inconvenience we are imposing with this ruling.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top