Split Discussion from Speaker Judicial Review

[Romanoffia]

Does a judicial review need statements? It is not a trial.

Judicial review would technically require that a suit relating to a given issue to be filed. IOW, it would be conducted similar to a simple civil suit, but only that it involves a constitutional issue as it relates to a specific law (which would be the object of the suit in terms of the constitutionality of the law and/or whether or not the law was constitutionally applied in a given case/ruling).

In this order:

A suit is filed that questions the constitutional basis of a law, and/or how the law was applied (or in most cases, whether or not a court decision was in compliance with the Constitution, the Law, or principles of law and precedent).

The defendant (in this case is the government itself) and would be represented by the AG (being also the defense attorney for the government/state).

The Plaintiff would be the party upon whom or on behalf of the suit was filed challenging the constitutional application of the law or the constitutional quality of the law itself.

It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to properly file an argument on behalf of his/her position and the AG defends the government's position in an initial statement.

This would then be followed by a back and forth rebuttal and questions from the sitting justices to determine unstated details, etc.,,,

Then the judges decide.

 

[Eluvatar]

Does a judicial review need statements? It is not a trial.

Judicial review would technically require that a suit relating to a given issue to be filed. IOW, it would be conducted similar to a simple civil suit, but only that it involves a constitutional issue as it relates to a specific law (which would be the object of the suit in terms of the constitutionality of the law and/or whether or not the law was constitutionally applied in a given case/ruling).

In this order:

A suit is filed that questions the constitutional basis of a law, and/or how the law was applied (or in most cases, whether or not a court decision was in compliance with the Constitution, the Law, or principles of law and precedent).

The defendant (in this case is the government itself) and would be represented by the AG (being also the defense attorney for the government/state).

The Plaintiff would be the party upon whom or on behalf of the suit was filed challenging the constitutional application of the law or the constitutional quality of the law itself.

It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to properly file an argument on behalf of his/her position and the AG defends the government's position in an initial statement.

This would then be followed by a back and forth rebuttal and questions from the sitting justices to determine unstated details, etc.,,,

Then the judges decide.

No. That is not how review works in TNP.

 

[Govindia]

I will remove myself from the Regional Assembly and re-apply.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Wouldnt it have been easier to have done that to start with? Unfortunately this means that you currently standing for the position of speaker are ineligible for election, as you will not be an RA member by the time the vote comes to a close.

 

[Govindia]

Wouldnt it have been easier to have done that to start with? Unfortunately this means that you currently standing for the position of speaker are ineligible for election, as you will not be an RA member by the time the vote comes to a close.

That is up to the EC.

it would have also been easier if people stopped personally attacking me as people have been doing so (which you are not aware of as you are new to the region still) even before I came to be Acting Speaker.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

We probably should not be discussing this in the court forums. While i am not aware of past trolling or insults directed at you. Overall that debate should have been more civil than it was, on both sides. I did not feel that there was a personal vendetta against you. People expect accountability.

But that is enough from me, you have done the right thing, so I will say no more. Thank you.

 

[Grimalkin]

I have split these posts from the main Judicial Review thread.

There was no personal attack upon you, Govindia. Finding something that you are doing wrong is not personally attacking you.

 

[Govindia]

I have split these posts from the main Judicial Review thread.

There was no personal attack upon you, Govindia. Finding something that you are doing wrong is not personally attacking you.

With how Flemingovia and BW were speaking to me, it came off differently.

 

[Romanoffia]

Does a judicial review need statements? It is not a trial.

Judicial review would technically require that a suit relating to a given issue to be filed. IOW, it would be conducted similar to a simple civil suit, but only that it involves a constitutional issue as it relates to a specific law (which would be the object of the suit in terms of the constitutionality of the law and/or whether or not the law was constitutionally applied in a given case/ruling).

In this order:

A suit is filed that questions the constitutional basis of a law, and/or how the law was applied (or in most cases, whether or not a court decision was in compliance with the Constitution, the Law, or principles of law and precedent).

The defendant (in this case is the government itself) and would be represented by the AG (being also the defense attorney for the government/state).

The Plaintiff would be the party upon whom or on behalf of the suit was filed challenging the constitutional application of the law or the constitutional quality of the law itself.

It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to properly file an argument on behalf of his/her position and the AG defends the government's position in an initial statement.

This would then be followed by a back and forth rebuttal and questions from the sitting justices to determine unstated details, etc.,,,

Then the judges decide.

No. That is not how review works in TNP.

And that is precisely the reason why things get so screwed up procedurally in this region.