Request for Legal Opinion: Amendment to Law 22

Greater Peterstan

Greater Peterstan

TNPer
In the formal discussions surrounding FD: Amendment to Law 22 the question has arisen about whether the law could be applied retroactively.

A quick summary, for your convenience:

The question was raised initially by Unibot, here.

Our esteemed Vice-Delegate is of the opinion that because is it merely codification of existing practice, retroactivity does not apply. In his own words, here!

Personally, I don't think that holds water, for reasons I explained here!

The court's opinion on this issue has important consequences on the passage of this Amendment, and potential future efforts to codify traditional unwritten practice in TNP.

Therefore, I would like to formally request that the Court of the North Pacific issue an opinion as to whether the proposed Amendment to Law 22 would be considered a new law, subject to the retroactivity requirements of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, or merely a recognition of a previously existing "unwritten law".

If the latter, I would like the court to recommend a procedure bringing traditional unwritten laws into the legal code while still protecting citizens from retroactive prosecution, and other abuses outlined in the TNP Bill of Rights.
 
Let me point out that my point was that the basis of prosecution wouldn't be based upon the amended language, but directly on the violation of the actually posted oath (Law 1 or Law 28), without reference to Law 22 as it would be amended.
 
Sigh. Fair enough.

While we're here, perhaps we should also ask the court for an opinion about whether, as the Legal Code is currently written, oath-breaking alone constitutes grounds for criminal proceedings above and beyond the consequences that are already explicitly written (Because as I read it, the existing law only provides for the removal of an official from office).

It boils down to the same question anyway - is the court instructed to follow only the strict letter of the law, or is there a constitutional basis for considering the unwritten traditions of the TNP?
 
It is the understanding of the Attorney General's office that the Court is to follow the law as written. However, precedent can be used to guide interpretation.

In the case of oaths, it is a clear interpretation that a requirement to swear to an oath is a requirement to abide by that oath. This interpretation has been supported by precedent. The court could of course disregard that precedent if it so chose.
 
if a citizen is elected to an office an oath must be doing to give the citizens ability to proceed to the elected position so i would have to uphold the oaths the only thing i have a frown about is that of the penalty of banning from the TNP.
 
Your honors, although I know you are busy with the conduct of other complicated matters, the new Delegate has expressed his desire to return to the business of this amendment. Your legal opinion is vitally needed to clarify the debate.

Could I also remind the court that the consequences for violating the oath of office are already prescribed in writing, in the legal code - consequences that include a motion of recall and removal from their position (for RA members).

These are located in TNP Law 1: Section 3, and TNP Law 28: Section 1. There is no mention of further criminal proceedings.

Again, the Bill of Rights clearly states that:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.

Therefore, any attempt to create an additional consequence, punishment or crime, above what is already prescribed, must be considered new law.
 
Could I also remind the court that the consequences for violating the oath of office are already prescribed in writing, in the legal code - consequences that include a motion of recall and removal from their position (for RA members).

These are located in TNP Law 1: Section 3, and TNP Law 28: Section 1. There is no mention of further criminal proceedings.

Again, the Bill of Rights clearly states that:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

What are you saying here????
 
Govindia:
Could I also remind the court that the consequences for violating the oath of office are already prescribed in writing, in the legal code - consequences that include a motion of recall and removal from their position (for RA members).

These are located in TNP Law 1: Section 3, and TNP Law 28: Section 1. There is no mention of further criminal proceedings.

Again, the Bill of Rights clearly states that:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

What are you saying here????
Click to expand...
Merely restating my original contention that Amending Law 22, by adding brand new punishments and consequences over what is currently prescribed, must constitute new law, regardless of any assertions about prior traditional practices in TNP.

Respectfully,

Greater Peterstan
 
As I've said Mr. Peterstan, I've notified the other two justices, and I'm waiting on them for deliberating privately about this.
 
I would counter a couple of argumenbts made by Greater Petersan.

First, as I've said more than once, the proposed amendment to Law 22 is not retroactive, so it would not involve any situation that existed prior to its adoption.

Second, the proposal seeks to consolidate and make consistent the law of substantive crimes and punishment. The new language does not requires a ban and ejection, only that those are the maximum punishments. It's hard to suggest grades of punishment at this stage of our jurisprudence as, as far as I know, there isn't a single instance where a criminal penalty has been imposed as a result of a full trial. Thus the language suggesting the maximums is just that, maximums.
In any event, the language of both Laws were prior to the last amendment of Law 22 which consolidated most of the criminal offenses defined in law to that Law, with the exception of the oaths.
 
In any event, at this stage of the game, I think it is fair to withdraw my request for a legal opinion, seeing as this amendment has been rushed to a vote, over my objections, before this honorable court could render an opinion.

I am happy to say that it seems to be crashing and burning mightily, and deservedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top