Gaspo's FOIA Review

I'm not necessarily a fan of waiting for briefs before thinking about a particular issues. Has that been the modus operandi in the past?
 
No, I said it was the way I operated.

We gave them the chance to submit a brief, I'm going to let them have that chance before I take a look at this review. We aren't in a hurry.
 
Thanks for the answer, Sanc.

I'm in no hurry and think deliberation is the best way for us to go, wherever possible. With respect to this, I just tend to like to do my own analysis versus looking at someone else's.

EDIT: What I meant to say, was i like to look at my own analysis first[/i] versus someone else's.
 
I'm able to separate how I view the law from how I'm told to by those who lodge briefs.
 
OK - I've put together some notes. This is my take on the request. I didn't think I'd come to this conclusion, honestly. But in looking at the BoR and Constitution together...i'm compelled to agree with Gaspo and actually go a bit further.

The court took the following into consideration when making it’s Ruling
The logic employed within the request flows in this manner

Bill of Rights & Constituion – Both are superior to the Legal Code -> Constitution – No law may contradict this Constitution and no governmental authority may suspend the Constitution (or Legal Code)-> Bill of Rights - Each nation is guaranteed that government shall operate in accordance with the principles of democracy, accountability and transparency -> FOIA (Legal Code) Exempts the NPIA from the this law.

It is important to ask whether or not – taken together, the Constitution and Bill of Rights sans the Freedom of Information Act within the Legal Code, require government authorities to be “transparent” in all of their operations as implied within the review request? In other words, absent the FOIA are all governmental agencies required to provide all information requested by members of the region because of the transparency principle in the Bill of Rights? The Court must determine if the transparency principle is interpreted to mean that each governmental agency must reveal all of its goings on in order to be in bounds of the Bill of Rights.

If we are to accept that the transperancy principle is to be interpreted in the most narrow way, then we must also interpret the democracy and accountability principles narrowly as well. The Court reviewed the Constitution to find any instance that did not meet this narrow definition for democracy and found:
Constition:
The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive offices may be regulated by law.
Click to expand...

This provision allows for the delegate to appoint executive officers to carry out duties of the Delegate’s office and there is no democratic principle at work within this provision. In the following section as well, the democratic principle is only minimally applied:
Constition:
The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
Click to expand...
Taken out of context, the Court finds at least two instances where the Constitution does not follow a narrow democratic principle. However, the Court opines that these two articles cannot be taken out of context in order to appreciate the democratic principle at work. Both the delegate and the Court are elected by members of the Regional Assembly (democracy) and by voting for these governmental officials, the RA through the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal code confer unto them specific duties to perform. These same officials are also subject to recalls and in the case of the delegate, term limits.

Furthermore, that the delegate is able to appoint officials to help him/her carry out those duties and that the Justices are able to select a chief amongst themselves does not seem to contradict the principle of democracy when taken in context of how these officials are originally selected by members of the region.

The court also finds no instance where the principle of accountability is subverted, explicitly or otherwise, in either the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Indeed, government officials are subject to recall and periodic votes should they wish to continue in their office. Laws are changed by the Regional Assembly and treaties must also be approved by the same.

My opinion
The court finds that the provision exempting intelligence services from the FOIA runs afoul of the democracy, accountability, and transparency principles of the Bill of Rights. In no section of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is there mention of an Intelligence Service or Agency. The Constitution does state that the Security Council shall “monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public” (Constitution Article 5.4) and one could interpret this to mean that as part of the Security Council's duties they may create an "intelligence service". While, the court finds this plausible the key portion of the clause within the Constitution is "and report it to the public". Here, again, the Constitution is consistent with the principles stated within the Bill of Rights.

However, the Legal Code exempts any potential intelligence service from the FOIA statute and its members are also exempted from treason, espionage, or proxying (LC Chapter 1, Section 8.20) while performing their duties in the service of said organization. If any such agency exists and/or is administered by any governmental official within The North Pacific, there exists no explicit accountability for that service, much less transparency.

The court finds that this is not keeping with the democracy, accountability, or transparency principles of the Bill of Rights and thus finds LC Chapter 6, Section 6.3.21 unconstitutional.

[should have a summary for those not looking to wade through this]
Click to expand...

thoughts?
 
I think your opinion goes into far too much detail than is actually necessary, and also strays outside its remit. Since the Court wasn't asked to look further, I would advise against doing so. We should answer what we are asked. Also, I'm not a guy who usually believes in "interpreting" the Constitution or other laws. No, we apply what's there.

This is a really easy decision. The Bill of Rights, which forms a part of the Constitution, guarantees transparent government. Under the theory of constitutional supremacy, no law can go against the constitution, and even if that theory didn't exist or apply, the Constitution itself says so.

I'm in total agreement with Gaspo here. That part of the FOIA is unconstitutional.

It'd also probably be a good idea if I write the opinion on this, given the problems we had last time. I know I tend to be flowerly and write long opinion pieces, but people have never had a problem with those I've written before.
 
I don't care who writes the opinion, but given the comments from the last opinion folks want more verbiage. Anything I write will have more verbiage since I like to explain my thought process and I like to put together building blocks of logic as well as explore alternatives.

It is certainly a different style than prior courts but, I'm positive I'm unlike previous justices. It's style, but on substance we agree that this provision is not consistent with the Bill of Rights.
 
It'd also probably be a good idea if I write the opinion on this, given the problems we had last time.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but I don't define Gaspo moaning and one other person moaning as major problems. Do also remember you two that you helped draft that - and when speaking to them in private, they had as much issues with the bits you wrote, Sanc, as the bits I did.

I'm quite happy to let you draft this Sanc - I feel like an absolute heap of crap right now and am in no state to be drafting rulings - but can we try not to say "it was all Abbey's ruling" when both of you helped write it, and if you felt it didn't go into enough detail, you could've -made- it go into more detail.

I refuse to be essentially rejected as a member of this Court because people didn't like our first ruling which we made in a hurry, drafted late at night and it just happened to be me who did the first draft.

On the point of law of this actual review - Sanc's right. It's unconstitutional because all Government has to be open and transparent and all the rest of it.
 
No one I've spoken to has issues with what I wrote, so unless you have proof of that and are willing to show it, then I believe that to be untrue.

I would also point out that I did express reservations about the way the ruling was presented and that it wasn't in line with previous rulings of this court. I also said we had to be extremely clear why we were overturning the precedent.

I note from the logs that I was also the last person to say yes, go ahead and post it. I didn't really have a choice to say otherwise because there was a 2:1 majority in favour of posting it anyway. My objections wouldn't have mattered because you had a headache and wanted to go to bed so you wouldn't have had time to change things just to suit me, now would you have.
 
Sanctaria:
No one I've spoken to has issues with what I wrote, so unless you have proof of that and are willing to show it, then I believe that to be untrue.

I would also point out that I did express reservations about the way the ruling was presented and that it wasn't in line with previous rulings of this court. I also said we had to be extremely clear why we were overturning the precedent.

I note from the logs that I was also the last person to say yes, go ahead and post it. I didn't really have a choice to say otherwise because there was a 2:1 majority in favour of posting it anyway. My objections wouldn't have mattered because you had a headache and wanted to go to bed so you wouldn't have had time to change things just to suit me, now would you have.
Click to expand...
So I'm a liar now too? Great. I'll speak to those that I spoke to to see if they're willing to allow me to post the logs of private conversations.

I've had no complaints about how the ruling was -presented-. Therein hasn't been the problem. And yes, you did say we had to be explicit why but failed to add any more explanation to the text - I thought at that point we'd managed to do so.

And while it was late and I wanted to sleep, had you brought up a point, I wouldn't have stopped you making suggestions. That's why I waited for a response from you - I didn't want it just rubberstamped. I wasn't just asking for the sake of asking. They -would- have mattered.

We need to learn from this mess, and that doesn't mean scapegoating me.
 
The issue before the Court is simple: Whether or not Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional due to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the transparent and accountable operations of its governmental authorities.

The first thing the Court looks at is the principle of constitutional supremacy. That is, that no legal document or law may contradict the Constitution. The Court finds that this principle is indeed in force in The North Pacific due to Article 6.5 of the Constitution and also section 11 of the Bill of Rights. At this point, the Court also wishes to confirm that under Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights stands a part of that Constitution.

Having established that no part of the legal code may contradict or supersede the Constitution, which we have also established includes the Bill of Rights, we now look to the question as to whether or not Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code contradicts the Constitution.

The piece of statute in question exempts regional intelligence services from the remit of Section 6.3 of the Legal Code, hereafter referred to as the Freedom of Information Act. It is the opinion of this Court that although Section 9 of the Bill of Rights guarantees the transparent operations of the government, it is only through the Freedom of Information Act in the Legal Code that nations may access information; that is, the Freedom of Information Act governs the transparency of the governmental authorities, and specifies procedures on how to access information that one requests.

Nations in The North Pacific are guaranteed transparency, and it is forbidden for governmental authorities to disregard of the Constitution, and it is also forbidden to contradict the Constitution. This Court finds that the Bill of Rights does not create an exemption from transparency for any governmental authority, and similarly this Court finds that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not create an exemption from constitutional supremacy for any law regarding government authorities.

As such, it is the opinion of this Court that Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional and consequently directs the Speaker of the Regional Assembly to strike it from the Legal Code.
 
Abbey - I've spoken to no one about any issue with the prior ruling. As I've stated before we can argue, fuss, fight, whatever behind these doors...but if we undermine one another externally by making comments that show a disjointed court - we effectively destroy our collective ability to be taken seriously.

Understanding this, I keep those types of comments to myself or in here or if i'm talking with either of you directly. We all agreed that we would like to have more time to make the prior ruling and we all agreed that time was of the essence. I'm fine with that given the circumstances because if Euvatar had won the first election we would've caused more than a 2 comment (hey you guys should have been more clear and don't rush things) uproar.

Abbey, you're not the scapegoat and I've certainly not mentioned anything negative about our deliberations to anyone. I'm not going to discuss what we deliberate on and/or blame a singular one of us without all of us discussing how we would like to shape our public comments.

I wanted to respond to Gaspo, I refrained because I didn't want us to argue out there if you all didn't agree with my take. Again, I've spoken to no one about how we ruled and certainly would never scapegoat Abbey or Sanc. I didn't have enough time to add commentary. It happens. But I still stand with our collective (all three of us) decision to get a decision out before the elections closed. Could it have been better worded? Could we have explained more? Yes and yes.

But all three of use are responsible for the decision and I accept that responsibility. Let's learn, not from what Gaspo wants us to be, but what type of Court we wish to be and forge our own identity. I mean this was a decision we all agreed on and we're having this convo. What about when we're split???

That's my five dimes.


.......comments on Sanc's ruling.....

-The ruling states that the only way to get information is through the FOIA but I don't believe that's a bit nebulous. I believe we should be a bit more clear and state "undisclosed information" and not just generic information.
-I would also add similar clarity to “it is only through the Freedom of Information Act in the Legal Code that nations may access undisclosed information”.
-Wording change here “and specifies procedures on how to access information that one requests.” To “and specifies procedures on how to access undisclosed information.”
-“disregard of the Constitution” to “disregard the Constitution”
-I agree with this section entirely and this may be where style takes over, but I would prefer at least adding that the Court examined both the Constitution and Bill of Rights for any exemptions to the transparency principle and found none versus stating that there are none. Might be style, but I want the record to reflect such an examination.

Now – when we strike this down what are some of the ramifications? Members will now be able to request information from the NPIA. We should fully expect the NPIA not to disclose this information and then we’ll be tasked with reviewing said situations. I’m not saying we need to address this in the opinion just for all of us to realize that this is a likely result.

Other than my comments I think Sanc’s ruling looks fine. Again, when I write rulings I’ll be more verbose, but I think this gets the job done.
 
Punk, I'm sorry, but some of your recommendations are totally you-centric.

If you're going to just keep recommending wording changes because you don't like this word or that word, then I'm not going to even look at your responses anymore, and any opinion you write, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, I will not join.

In short, I don't want you on this Court, and I never wanted you on this Court, but I'm stuck with you, so I'm willing to work with you. But if you think I'm going to incorporate your pedantic changes, then you should really think again. I'll come to a decision with you no problem, but once that's over, especially when it comes to the writing of the opinion, you can bugger right off if you think you'll have my cooperation.

On the other issue, Abbey I'm not going to say you're the scapegoat, but it's your opinion, so you have to take responsibility for it. We've had this discussion.

I'm going to edit the opinion as necessary.
 
The issue before the Court is simple: Whether or not Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional due to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the transparent and accountable operations of its governmental authorities.

The first thing the Court looks at is the principle of constitutional supremacy. That is, that no legal document or law may contradict the Constitution. The Court finds that this principle is indeed in force in The North Pacific due to Article 6.5 of the Constitution and also section 11 of the Bill of Rights. At this point, the Court also wishes to confirm that under Article 1 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights stands a part of that Constitution.

Having established that no part of the legal code may contradict or supersede the Constitution, which we have also established includes the Bill of Rights, we now look to the question as to whether or not Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code contradicts the Constitution.

The piece of statute in question exempts regional intelligence services from the remit of Section 6.3 of the Legal Code, hereafter referred to as the Freedom of Information Act. It is the opinion of this Court that although Section 9 of the Bill of Rights guarantees the transparent operations of the government, it is only through the Freedom of Information Act in the Legal Code that nations may access undisclosed information; that is, the Freedom of Information Act governs the transparency of the governmental authorities, and specifies procedures on how to access undisclosed information.

Nations in The North Pacific are guaranteed transparency, and it is forbidden for governmental authorities to disregard the Constitution, and it is also forbidden to contradict the Constitution. This Court finds that the Bill of Rights does not create an exemption from transparency for any governmental authority, and similarly this Court finds that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not create an exemption from constitutional supremacy for any law regarding government authorities.

As such, it is the opinion of this Court that Section 6.3.21 of the Legal Code is unconstitutional and consequently directs the Speaker of the Regional Assembly to strike it from the Legal Code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top