Minor Error Clause Review

So the question seems to basically be as follows:

Can the RA create laws which provide means other than those enumerated in the constitution, for amending the law?
If Yes, minor error clause may be constitutional.
If No, it's not constitutional.

Can the RA delegate its power to change the legislated law within the government?
If Yes (and if yes, it should be with the caveat that such delegation be limited), then the law is Constitutional
If No, the law is unconstitutional, and possible issues arise with letting different offices set their own rules etc.


These questions turn on the conflict between two rules of interpreting statutes: plain meaning, and exclusivity implied by explicit statements.

The first one, plain meaning, means this question hinges on the constitution, which says "may". Not "must", or "can only" or "only can", but "may". Which would mean it's one way, but not necessarily the only way.

On the other hand, the procedure is the only one enumerated, and is specific, which suggests that if the drafters had had any intent to include other alternatives, they would have done so.

So we decide which of those we like better, or how we feel about these questions, and the results are as follows:

If we think "may" means "can but not the only way", and we think they can delegate some of their legislative power (they being the RA), then the law is constitutional.

If we think "may", plus the specific process, means "this is the only way, end of discussion" which implies that they can't delegate their power, then the law is unconstitutional, because it contradicts the Constitution's policies for changing the law, and delegates some power to authorize changes to the Courts.

Thoughts?

Edit: Elu's post is basically saying "Even if they can't delegate, the fact that people have time to object means that if noone objects, then they've effectively got the RA's approval and it's fine anyways". While I like the result (because I'm all about efficiency), I'm not sure that's necessarily constitutional, because there is a specific process enumerated for amending the law.
 
Having looked at the clause in question, I don't think it was ever intended the RA could amend law by anything other than a majority vote. And even if the intent wasn't there, that's the only provision the constitution makes for amending legislation. I don't find it to be constitutional.

As for Elu's comment, the clause says majority vote and does not make an exception between amending, enacting, or repealing laws. If he wants us to interpret the lack of objection as constituting a vote in the case of amending, then we'd have to find the same in the case of enacting and repealing.
 
Who wants to write the opinion? :P

I think we're all on the same page, though Hile hasn't weighed in yet.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by r3naissanc3r Stark on the Minor Error Clause​

Opinion drafted by Hileville, joined by Sanctaria and Gaspo​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by r3naissanc3r.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Constitution of the North Pacific:
Article 2. The Regional Assembly:
1. Requirements for membership in the Regional Assembly will be determined by law.
2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
3. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
4. The quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be a third of its membership.
5. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker every four months by a plurality vote.
6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.
Click to expand...
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate:
1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.
5. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive offices may be regulated by law.
6. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
7. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds the Vice Delegate’s endorsement count.
8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.
Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the Preamble of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Preamble:
In order to present a clearer and more comprehensible legal system, the Regional Assembly undertakes to keep the law of the North Pacific organized and clear. If a minor error is found in this Legal Code, the Speaker will update it on the published instructions of the Court, unless a Regional Assembly member objects within five days. This Code will be divided into several Chapters, which may contain Sections. Every operative sentence must be a numbered clause, numbered within a Chapter. Clauses may be referenced by chapter and clause number..
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

The Court reviewed the the sections of the Constitution as listed above as well as the Preamble of the Legal Code. The Court notes that the Constitution specifically grants power to amend a Law to the Regional Assembly which requires a majority vote. The Constitution also grants the Delegate the ability to veto said Amendment.

The Court is in unanimous agreement that the Constitution grants Amendment power to the Regional Assembly and also places the restriction of requiring a majority vote on said power. The Court reads the requirement of a "majority vote" as a vote in accordance with Regional Assembly Policy for holding votes. This specifically means that just giving a period of time to object to an amendment does not constitute a "majority vote".

Therefore the Court is in unanimous agreement that the section in the Legal Code's Preamble which gives the Speaker the power to amend a minor error on the published instructions of the Court is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top