FD: Emergency Review of Executive Action; Clarification of procedures

Felasia

Felasia

TNPer
As sponsored by Grosseschnauzer, Fishalamode, and Moany Old Gits.

Link to Preliminary Discussions

Paragraph 4 be added to Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of The North Pacific, as follows:
4. At the request of either (a) any four members of the Regional Assembly who do not currently hold the elected offices of Vice Delegate or as a Justice of the Court, or (b) of the Speaker, or an Assembly member then acting as the presiding officer of the Assembly in the absence of the Speaker, a presiding judicial officer may issue an emergency order enjoining an actual or intended Executive action pending prompt further proceedings before the Court. A majority of the three-member panel of the Court may thereafter temporarily enjoin an actual or intended Executive action pending final disposition of the matter either by the Court, or otherwise by an expedited vote of the Regional Assembly within parameters proposed in the request by the Speaker or members of the Regional Assembly as set by a Court order under such terms as deemed appropriate under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Amendments to TNP LAW 31 on the office of Attorney General
To better serve the region as Chief Prosecutor to prosecute any abuse of power to the fullest extent, the Regional Assembly declares the office of Attorney General be an elected office, to be elected at the same time as the Justices of the Court of The North Pacific in the manner provided by Section Two of Law 26.

Section 1:
1) To serve as Attorney General, one must be a member of the Regional Assembly for thirty consecutive days prior to candidacy.
2) One must not have been convicted of any prior charge.

Section 2:
1) The Attorney General is to serve as Chief Prosecutor to all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
2) The Attorney General is to work within the rules adopted by the Court.
3) The Attorney General shall serve for six months.

Section 3:
1) Should the position for the Attorney General become vacant for any reason, the Chief Justice shall name a replacement for the interim until a special election is held under Section Three of Law 26, or until the next regular judicial election.
2) A three day nomination process shall begin immediately after a vacancy, followed by a seven day voting period to elect a new Attorney General for the remainder of the term.
3) It is the duty of the AG to complete any trial they are prosecuting- should the original AG be disposed, then the interim shall complete the current proceedings. Should the interim AG also be disposed, the elected replacement shall complete the proceedings It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting. If for any reason, should the original Attorney General be unable to complete a pending case, then the interim or elected successor Attorney General shall take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
3) Consistent with paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, the Attorney General may request a presiding judicial officer to issue an emergency order enjoining an actual or intended Executive action pending prompt further proceedings before the Court. A majority of the three-member panel of the Court may thereafter temporarily enjoin an actual or intended Executive action pending final disposition of the matter either by the Court, or otherwise by an expedited vote of the Regional Assembly within parameters proposed in the request by the Attorney General as set by a Court order under such terms as deemed appropriate under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights.
Section 4:
1) This law will take effect during the next judicial election cycle, pursuant to Law 26.
Click to expand...


Both amendments are now in Formal Discussion.
 
A brief explanation for recent admitted members to the R.A.

These proposals are designed to fashion a new procedure to replace the abolished Council of Legal Oversight using existing parts of the TNP government.

This actually returns some authority to the Court and to the R.A. that existed under the last Constitution, and it clearly spells out a process by which the Speaker, the Attorney General, or members of the R.A. can obtain a temporary freeze of an Executive act, and get an expedited review from the Court or or an expedited response from the R.A.

The amendment to Law 31 is necessary because the office of Attorney General is created by a law and not in the Constitution; that Law also needed to be cleaned up to fit with other recent amendments to the Legal Code, such as changes in the Election Law.
 
I can't really comment on Constitution Amendment since it's involve my current position, but the part about the office of Attorney General looks good to me. However, I would encourage discussion by the RA and the Cabinet Member on both agenda though since this have a large effect on their authority.
 
To be sure there is no misunderstanding, the actual process being added to the Constitution in terms of the Speaker (or the RA member presiding in the chair), or of the group of RA members who are not elected to office is the same as that being added to Law 31 with respect to the Attorney General. Since the AG is an office created by law and is not mentioned in the Constitution, it became necessary to structure the proposal into its current form.

I'm not sure there may be much additional discussion. The need to replace the CLO procedure with one involving existing offices and the Court was discussed at some length during the CLO repeal debate and vote, and in preliminary discussions. I believe the proposal is in harmony with the current constitutional structure of the government.
 
Efficiency is always a good thing. I'd most likely be in favor of this amendment, unless someone should convince me of changing my opinion.

I'd also like to apologize for my absence; I've had plenty of things to attend to outside of NS and couldn't attend to many of my positions.
 
I would suggest that the timing of the vote be the same as the housekeeping proposal to clean up references to the CLO.

I think it would make quorum and required majorities for both easier to attain.

just my $.02.
 
Umm, I've seen this, and while I like checks and balances I can't see this procedure ever being used. Just looks really complicated for nothing. Having said that I haven't been around this particular yet to accurately make that statement with great accuracy...

Abstain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top