Discussion of Request for Review of Spekaer's powers

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Iro on the Speaker's Powers​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Iro.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant section of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

Article 2.6 of the Constitution:
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Speaker is withing their powers to limit discussion and campaigning for Regional Assembly Votes. The Speaker in doing this is permitted to use their discretion. It is the belief of this Court that the Speaker did not violate the rights of any nation in the North Pacific. While the Bill of Rights does entitle each nation to a vote and equal protection of that vote it is the belief of the Court that the Speaker has done just that. The Speaker has enforced his policy evenly and without prejudice to all nations in the World Assembly.


Please review the above. Not sure if I like the wording. I may alter it a bit before posting.
 
I have some concerns with this proposed ruling. At present the regulations, as they have been expanded by Kingborough, are having the effect of disenfranchising one individual and one individual alone.

It could be argued that this is in breach of Chapter 1.0 of the legal code; that Grosse is being punished for writing in purple, an offence not listed in the legal code. I am also concerned that King's rules are in breach of articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Article 10 clearly states that al nations are 'entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote'. Grosse's right to vote is not being protected. Furthermore, Kingborough has been applying his rules ex-post facto; he has on multiple occasions voided votes for breaching rules he created after that had been cast.
 
Well I can remove that part and add a more general notice as long as the rules are applied evenly. After looking at the request again we weren't asked if they violated the rights. Just if by limiting the discussion does it violate the BoR.
 
In all honesty I cannot say I agree with your conclusions Hile. Whilst the speaker has the right to make rules regarding the assembly, article 10 of the BoR gives is very clear when it states that all nations right to vote must be protected. It is my opinion that whilst the speaker can make rules to manage the assembly, these rules cannot restrict the right to vote in any way; furthermore, when he discounted perfectly clear votes as they did not meet his rules he was acting illegally. Here is my alternate opinion;

The Court opines the following:

The Speaker is clearly within their rights to limit discussion and campaigning for Regional Assembly Votes to areas other than the voting thread. However, article 10 of the Bill of Rights states that all nations entitled to vote must receive equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote. As such the court concludes that the rules implemented by the speaker cannot have the effect of preventing any Regional Assembly member from voting on any matter, and that whilst the speaker may edit, suppress or otherwise alter the presentation of an individuals vote, he cannot alter it in a substantive manner, and must count all votes issued regardless of whether or not they comply with his rules.

As such, the court must order an urgent recount of all Assembly votes conducted since the speaker began the policy of discounting votes that did not meet his requirements.
 
Article 10 states that equal and fair protection of a nations vote must be given. I believe the speaker had equally and fairly. Since the rules have been adopted that has happened. The applying of the rules ex post facto is a violation of the BoR. I disagree with your point that a vote can't be discounted if it does not apply to the current rules.
 
Article 10 doesn't say equal and fair protection; it says 'equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote'. I read that as two separate parts;

1. Equal treatment
2. Protection

By discounting votes which did not meet his rule King met 1 - he was treating everyone's vote equally - but did not meet 2 - he was not protecting peoples right to vote. I do not see how the court can come to any ruling other than that the speaker was acting illegally when he discounted peoples votes.
 
I disagree with Bel. King allowed them to vote, their votes just violated RA practices and procedures. The only votes that were discounted were those who refused to change the format of their vote even after notification that they were were in violation of said rules.

King did not take away their right to vote, they voted, they just did so in a matter that was incorrect.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I disagree with Bel. King allowed them to vote, their votes just violated RA practices and procedures. The only votes that were discounted were those who refused to change the format of their vote even after notification that they were were in violation of said rules.

King did not take away their right to vote, they voted, they just did so in a matter that was incorrect.
Click to expand...
I agree. Also after reading the BoR the applying of these rules proactively during a vote is not against the BoR either as it only mentions criminal proceedings.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Iro on the Speaker's Powers​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Iro.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant section of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

Article 2.6 of the Constitution:
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Bill of Rights:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Speaker by making these policies was within their powers as laid out by the Constitution and not in violation of the Bill of Rights. The Court looked extensively at the Section 10 of the Bill of Rights and determined that the rules that were adopted still allowed the protection of each nations right to vote. We are aware the Speaker discounted votes that were not in line with the adopted polices but again the voters that lodged an invalid vote were still given the right to vote in the matter. It is our belief that once these rules were adopted they were enforced evenly and fairly.

The Court thanks all those involved for their patience in this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top