Court Jurisdiction Amendment Bill

r3naissanc3r

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Court Jurisdiction Amendment Bill

1. Article 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, review the constitutionality of laws, and review the legality of government policies and actions by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...

2. Article 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will amount to interpretation of the law and will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
Click to expand...
 
This bill amends two clauses of Article 5 of the Constitution as shown in the following:

1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws, and review the or legality of government policies and actions by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...

4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will amount to interpretation of the law and will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
Click to expand...

The purpose of this bill is to limit the jurisdiction of the court. Specifically, it removes civil cases and advisory opinions from the list of cases the court can hear.

Regarding civil lawsuits, those are fundamentally unsuitable to NationStates for two reasons. The first reason is that, there are very few actions that can qualify as actions subject to civil litigation. In our law, the only such action is fraud, which is also defined as a crime in the Criminal Code. The second reason is that NationStates courts are very limited in the kinds of remedies they can offer to the winner of a civil lawsuit: in a system where there is no economy, there are practically no such meaningful remedies. Given that the awarding of a legal or equitable remedy is the reason for a civil lawsuit to be brought in the first place, the absense of such remedies makes civil lawsuits, and civil law in general, meaningless in an NS context.

Regarding advisory opinions, those are currently allowed because of the part in the court empowerment clause that specifies that the court can "resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law [...] at the request of an affected party." Instead of writing again about why advisory opinions, I will refer you to what I had said in my campaign for Justice last July:

I will answer this in two parts. The reason is that, in The North Pacific, we use “judicial review” as a blanket term for two distinct judicial functions: First, the after-the-fact review of actions of government officials, including the passage of legislation---this is how “judicial review” is (I believe, I am not a lawyer) interpreted in real life, and how I will use the term in the rest of my answer. Second, the issue of advisory opinions on questions of law.

The first function, judicial review, is critical for the operation of the court, and arguably its main function within our governmental structure. It is the primary means through which the court interprets and enforces the law, and an essential check on all the various branches of government. Our members tend to be overly eager to use judicial reviews to scrutinize their leaders. This is not necessarily problematic, certainly much less so than the other issue I identify in the second part of the answer; and the court should not be hesitant to summarily address trivial requests for review.

Unlike judicial review, advisory opinions are largely supplementary, and certainly not essential for a properly functional judiciary. Though I hinted at it at the beginning of my answer, it is important to spell out the difference between the two functions. Advisory opinions amount to the court interpreting the law in a general sense, detached from any specific circumstances. In advisory opinions, there is no adjudication of particular cases or actual controversy, specific matters of evidence are not to be considered, and actions of officials are not to be upheld or quashed. These matters are reserved for judicial review.

This distinction may perhaps be sound in theory. In practice, though, the line can be blurry and members cannot discriminate between the two; even worse, they may ignore the distinction and abuse advisory opinions. They may request advisory opinions as a means to pre-empt decisions of the court in actual later cases, or to seek prior endorsement or condemnation by the court of their own or their opponents’ actions. In fact, my experience tells me that this is routinely the case, not just in The North Pacific but in all regions I have been a member of that have advisory opinions---and I have been in a few. The situation is particularly dire in our region, because of the very litigious attitude of our members, something I discuss in my answer to your next question.

In many real life jurisdictions (including I believe federal courts in the US), advisory opinions are outright prohibited, as they are seen as a not just unnecessary, but also inappropriate function of the judiciary. Where they are not prohibited, access to them is very restricted, often exclusive to the government. In NationStates jurisdictions, advisory opinions arguably have more utility than in real life, owing to the fact that sources of professional legal counsel are much scarcer if at all existent---to put it simply, you cannot hire a professional lawyer in NationStates.

Personally, I tend to reluctantly accept having advisory opinions as a judicial function. However, I generally advocate limiting access to them, by requiring that applicants should demonstrate that they have a specific and substantial stake in the case. This was, in fact, one of the two purposes of the amendment to Article 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution I co-authored with Eluvatar, which inserted the “affected party” clause. Furthermore, I try to discourage their use in favor of a more proactive approach: do first, seek a judicial review second.

Another way to reduce the frequency of advisory opinion applications is by directly attacking the source of their utility as I identified it above: the lack of professional legal counsellors. This can be achieved by reforming the office of the Attorney General to, in addition to its current duties, also act as the chief legal advisor to the government, essentially the government’s lawyer. In that case, it could also be conceivable that access to advisory opinions is restricted exclusively to the Attorney General.
Click to expand...

A side-effect of removing the part allowing reviews is that we also arguably remove the interpretive powers of the court. For this reason, I have made an addition to Clause 4, which establishes that opinions delivered by the court are binding interpretations of the law.
 
I like the aspect of a Court ruling on the law and it's interpretations, it's very true to real life so if i'm following correctly and you're amending Article 5, Clause 4 to reflect that, I can support that. Furthermore I'm inclined to agree that civil cases really aren't a common occurrence and thus support this in totality.
 
It effectively clips the wings of the court, who have been getting a but uppity of late, and leaves those with civil complaints nowhere to go for redress.

I like it.
 
There has been a previous ruling that the fiqh does not, actually, exist. Are you saying that the fiqh now has some form of implicit recognition and that Gaspo was a bit of a dickhead all along?
 
Well, regardless of whether the Fiqh's decisions are recognized by TNP law, there's certainly nothing to stop anyone from taking civil complaints there, if the TNP court no longer hears them.
 
flemingovia:
It effectively clips the wings of the court, who have been getting a but uppity of late, and leaves those with civil complaints nowhere to go for redress.

I like it.
Click to expand...
Flemingovia makes a valid point concerning civil complaints insofar as it would not only clip the wings of the Court, it would effectively render the Court null and void because the elimination of civil complaints would, in effect, eliminate the Court's ability to determine certain aspects of weighing evidence and make it impossible to prosecute certain criminal cases.

For instance, there have been any number of cases in which slanderous/libelous statements are prosecuted as 'Fraud'. Fraud is criminal, slander/libel is civil. There are two different cases of burden of proof due to the logic involved in Fraud as an offense and slander/libel as an offense.

To wit: if you slander/libel someone and they file a civil complaint (presumably under principles of Common Law which do not necessarily require a specific statute to be involved), the burden of proof is upon the accused (since one's defense against slander/libel is to simply deny the truth of a statement thus throwing the burden of proof on the person who uttered the slanderous/libelous statement). Prosecuting slander/libel requires a civil complaint because a criminal complaint would then require the person who was slandered to prove the slander was not true, and, under principles of law and logic, you cannot prove a negative in the absolute (beyond a reasonable doubt). Hence, when it comes to burden of proof, denying the court the option of mitigating a civil complaint means that anyone can say anything about anyone with impunity since slander/libel (false statements in general) do not constitute 'Fraud' per se because in an instance of Fraud (under any reasonable legal system) one must prove intent and premeditation with malice of forethought.

Under civil law which is largely administered by tradition, practice and Common Law principles, slander and libel are matters of equity and must be adjudicated as a civil issue.

As for the Court not being able to effectively administer a punishment for a civil law issue, that is a straw dog argument. All things considered, the Court cannot even effectively punish anyone without the cooperation of the convicted.

As for the Court being uppity, that's what happens when you actually get people on the Court who actually understand law and the principles governing law. You get deliberation that takes into consideration more than just pure, blind, dumb statute. There's an old adage that says, "the Law is an ass" which in essence means that the law has no mind, no logic, no reason and that Judges and Juries must apply the mind, logic and reason in a rational manner otherwise the law is just a dead thing that people pay homage to by applying it in a mindless fashion.

That said, to eliminate the aspects of Civil Law from TNP Law, it denies the court most of its ability to render justice at all. You cannot have a civil society without a system that deals with civil law (i.e.: issues of 'equity' in addition to criminal issues).

As per the belief that you cannot have issues of 'equity' in a system that has no 'economy' (in economic terms), that too is a straw dog. Criminal law is an extension of civil law (equity), not the other way around. That arrangement has existed in all legal systems since Hammurabi's Code and no legal system arranged to the contrary can even function at all.

You do something shitty to someone and you have to pay the price for your transgression - hence, Criminal offenses are a matter of Equity, which is the primary root of all law. Thus, Criminal Law is an extension of Civil Laws involving equity. The difference between the two is that Criminal penalties involve restrictions upon one's rights as a citizen; civil law does not.

As a result, if we eliminate the Court's ability concerning Civil Law issues, we force all offenses, no matter how minimal, to rise to the level of criminal behavior. That is tantamount to a death penalty for a parking ticket.

As for the argument of whether or not we have a 'Common Law-Positive Law' system in TNP and as to whether or not we 'recognize' Common Law in TNP, I hold that we do recognize Common Law and its principles in TNP: we recognize 'Precedence' and litigate/prosecute cases in TNP using the principles of Precedent and Merit concerning each individual case. Hence, whether we affirm it or deny it, we do in fact, by Precedent, have a Common Law system that is unique to TNP and this requires that we have the ability to deliberate using the full scope of 'burden of proof' (criminal, exclusively) and 'preponderance of evidence' (the exclusive domain of 'civil law').

And thus, this proposed modification to TNP Law and Constitution would thwart the ability of the Court to deliver justice by reducing all deliberations to reside under the rules of Criminal Justice and thus negate the ability of the Court to even deliberate Criminal law.

To remove the element of Civil Law would be like ripping the foundation out from under a house and then expecting the house to not fall down.

[Addendum on edit]

Consider the following (as a rather superficial delineation between Criminal and Civil law) and how they are inter-dependent: Common Law/Civil Law


Oh, and eliminating or reducing 'Advisory' opinions is not an issue because the Court can, out of hand, refuse to entertain 'advisory opinion' requests at will.

I'm not a big fan of advisory opinions and would like to see them go away, but since it is the purvey of the Court to entertain such issues, the Court's discretion should suffice in that department.
 
I do not think this legislation should receive the support of the Regional Assembly. Here is why.

1. It has a vague whiff of political motivation about it. In the Opening post the reason for the legislation is given: it is to "limit the jurisdiction of the court." there have been several proposals recently seeking to limit the authority of several branches of TNP life. All except (funnily enough) the Speaker's Office. Put me in a plastic bag and call me Mr Suspicious, but I smell fish.

2. the legislation seeks to remove civil cases from our courts. No thank you. There are two reasons why this should not happen. Firstly, sometimes people NEED an avenue for civil redress. Our laws are very limited ins scope, and if we stop civil cases coming to court then those who feel that they have been bullied, conspired against, overlooked, treated unfairly etc will have no redress within the constaytooshunal system. Nah. let's keep it for the sake of the little guy.

second, there are some people who seem to be attracted to TNP by the seriousness of it all. You can usually tell them by their long, pompous and very very serious posts. I am not sure of the reasons for this - I have a private theory that they were rushed through potty training at a young age, and this has left them with issues. For the rest of us, NS is a game we play for fun. Let's be honest - it is the civil cases that are the FUN cases. Slander, argument, name-calling and so on. Let's have more of it. Let's encourage people to sue!! It's fun, and we will be the poorer without it.

Finally (and this is my suspicious mind again) I wonder why some folks want to limit the court to just a few, carefully prescribed cases? There have been a number of cases where injustice has taken place in TNP, but the court has said "no crime has taken place under our laws". generally speaking, those who want to limit the courts are those who have most to fear from a court with liberty to hear cases out of their control.
 
But, as r3n points out, civil complaints have no reasonable thing to award the person who's been attacked, bullied, treated unfairly etc. In a community that size, I think those things have to be resolved among people as friends (or not), and then dealt with in a political manner - ie, not voting the arse who keeps bullying all the new members into regional office, and pressuring any delegate who appoints them. This is actually where something like the Fiqh could be used - but I think r3n has a genuine point as to their general uselessness within the actual legal system.

And what motivation can there possibly be by not removing any of the speakers (day to day at least) fairly limited powers?

TNP has a serious problem with running to the courts every time that there's an issue, rather than trying to sort it out amongst ourselves. That's not what our courts are there for and it doesn't lead anywhere good.

And finally, there are many things in this world which are wrong but not illegal - our laws are not and never will be comprehensive in that way - they can't be. NS Courts are no different.
 
This;

As near as I can tell, there has only been one civil case in TNP court history - Flemingovia v. Grosseschnauzer. For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

or this:

TNP has a serious problem with running to the courts every time that there's an issue,
Click to expand...

If you are tag teaming, you are supposed to make the same argument, not opposite ones.
 
Well that'd be good evidence that we aren't tag teaming now, wouldn't it?

Although, it doesn't follow that a paucity of civil cases is any evidence that we don't have a very litigative(word choice?) culture here in TNP.
 
I firmly believe that civil cases should go to the fiqh - what better way to encourage the adoption of flemingovian ideals?
 
flemingovia:
This;

As near as I can tell, there has only been one civil case in TNP court history - Flemingovia v. Grosseschnauzer. For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

or this:

TNP has a serious problem with running to the courts every time that there's an issue,
Click to expand...

If you are tag teaming, you are supposed to make the same argument, not opposite ones.
Click to expand...
What COE said. We've not even discussed this. I know you like to blame IRC and people making friends for all this region's problems, but strangely enough we'll make arguments without discussing them with each other beforehand.
 
Flemingovia brings up a good point about legislation that 'limits' the Court's Jurisdiction that brings this to mind:

This bit of legislation under discussion would, in effect, have the tendency to over-ride the Constitution by limiting the Constitutional authority of the Court and thus diddle with separation of powers and the whole process of Constitutional Review.

Thus, the legislation, if passed, would clearly be unconstitutional in and of itself.
 
SillyString:
I firmly believe that civil cases should go to the fiqh - what better way to encourage the adoption of flemingovian ideals?
Click to expand...
The Fiqh has no legal or constitutional acknowledgement or position. it works only as a voluntary means of conflict resolution. If one party does not agree to be bound by its ruling, it does not work. No one person can take another to the Fiqh.

As it stands, officials can not only refuse to come before the Fiqh, but can even claim that the Fiqh does not even exist.

As a case in point, can you honestly, hand on heart, ever see Grosse agreeing to have any case involving him heard before the Fiqh? Honestly? hand on heart?

that could be changed by legislation, of course, but this ought to be introduced BEFORE civil cases are removed from the court. Otherwise we are in limbo with nowhere for civil cases to legally go.

as things stand, and I speak as the one who established the Fiqh, the Fiqh cannot legally pick up the slack of civil cases from the constitutional court. And we will get into a mess if we try that route.
 
flemingovia:
SillyString:
I firmly believe that civil cases should go to the fiqh - what better way to encourage the adoption of flemingovian ideals?
Click to expand...
The Fiqh has no legal or constitutional acknowledgement or position. it works only as a voluntary means of conflict resolution. If one party does not agree to be bound by its ruling, it does not work. No one person can take another to the Fiqh.

As it stands, officials can not only refuse to come before the Fiqh, but can even claim that the Fiqh does not even exist.

As a case in point, can you honestly, hand on heart, ever see Grosse agreeing to have any case involving him heard before the Fiqh? Honestly? hand on heart?

that could be changed by legislation, of course, but this ought to be introduced BEFORE civil cases are removed from the court. Otherwise we are in limbo with nowhere for civil cases to legally go.

as things stand, and I speak as the one who established the Fiqh, the Fiqh cannot legally pick up the slack of civil cases from the constitutional court. And we will get into a mess if we try that route.
Click to expand...
But the only way civil cases in a community this size with no meaningful reward that can be given to the wronged party /is/ a system where both sides agree to take part and work in it.

If Civil cases are to work there needs to be some actual gain for the wronged party and loss for the other. Pray tell, flem, what would you suggest that these would be?
 
Exactly what Abbey said - Unless we are comfortable imposing bans for non-criminal cases, and I personally am not, there is essentially no sentence that would arise from a civil case that would not require the defendant to choose to go along with it. So voluntary participation is already required.

Had the court required Grosse to apologize to you as part of its verdict in that case, do you think he would have done so? I don't... so why involve the court at all?
 
Generally speaking, when one enters civil litigation damages or punishment are secondary to being shown to be in the right and that legal opinion backs this up. This is true in real life, where often civil actions are pursued even when the prospect of receiving damages are negligible.

that being said, I do not think it is beyond the wit of the region to come up with a way of compensating a damaged party, or punishing a wrongdoer. For example, long, long ago it was suggested that the meaningful currency of TNP was post count, and that a wrongdoer might be punished by having their post count reduced (or a wronged party compensated by having their post count increased). This is just one possibility.

But, as I have said, in most cases it would probably be enough to be shown to be in the right, and perhaps receive an apology from the court on behalf of the regional community for the wrong received.

And no, SillyString, as I have said before I believe that Grosse lacks the moral integrity to acknowledge that he is in the wrong, or the moral fibre to apologise even if he was shown to be in the wrong.
 
flemingovia:
As a case in point, can you honestly, hand on heart, ever see Grosse agreeing to have any case involving him heard before the Fiqh? Honestly? hand on heart?

that could be changed by legislation, of course, but this ought to be introduced BEFORE civil cases are removed from the court. Otherwise we are in limbo with nowhere for civil cases to legally go.
Click to expand...
Would an amendment to this bill like the following fix that problem satisfactorily?
3. A new section of the Legal Code shall be appended to Chapter 3, and shall read as follows:
Section 3.4: The Fiqh
16. The Fiqh shall have the legal authority to arbitrate disputes between citizens of The North Pacific.
17. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall be legally binding upon the parties of cases brought before the Fiqh.
18. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall not be binding on any government body, nor shall they compel any government official to exercise the powers of their office in execution of the ruling.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

EDIT: R3n, if Flem likes this amendment, would you consider adding it to your bill, or do you think it ought to be proposed separately?
 
If the court makes a ruling that a nation was in the wrong and must apologize, then surely the ruling is binding on that nation. I'm not saying it would ever happen, but if someone chose not to abide by it, they are in breach of their RA oath and would eventually be removed from the RA.

That's the way I see it. I also agree with what Flemingovia has said.

Abbey, when you were Attorney General, I didn't run to you or the courts with evidence, I tried to sort it out with people. Funnily enough, that did not go well. Some may have the political capital to resolve their troubles amicably without involving the court, but not everybody can achieve that by their own resources, and it is why we have a court, criminal and civil.

There are probably many societies of our size that have no need for a court, but somewhere in our history we adopted a model that involves the "rule of law" and the court is integral to that.
 
Lord Nwahs:
I don't see the point of having separate courts for Civil cases.
Click to expand...
I concur with that opinion.

The only thing that changes with a civil case is the burden of proof vs. preponderance of evidence.

Remember, Crimes are offenses against the State/Society/The People.

Civil Offenses are disputes between individuals.

In Criminal cases, disputes between the state and an individual or group is adjudicated; the presumption of innocence is assumed, and a conviction is only arrived at when a state of being 'beyond a reasonable doubt' exists.

In Civil Cases, disputes between individuals are adjudicated; there is no innocences or guilt, per se, as such cases are joined to remediate disputes between individuals which may result in apportionment of liability instead of an absolute decision.

There is no point in creating a second court to handle Civil matters and if there is, then such a court could be established by civil legislation and not the amendment of the Constitution.


Now, that said, if one is Hell bent for a second court to handle Civil matters, would be more logical for either the Court via court rules to appoint 'Magistrates' to handle such cases if needs be, rather than to create via Constitutional Amendment what is tantamount to a 2nd Judicial Branch (and thus a 4th estate of government) and thus even further disturbing checks and balances between branches?


The simple solution is to simply allow the Court to adjudicate Civil cases as is provided for in the Constitution:

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...

We already have a court to handle civil cases, it's called the TNP Court. :P

IOW, a constitutional amendment is not needed.
 
Chasmanthe:
If the court makes a ruling that a nation was in the wrong and must apologize, then surely the ruling is binding on that nation. I'm not saying it would ever happen, but if someone chose not to abide by it, they are in breach of their RA oath and would eventually be removed from the RA.
Click to expand...
I do not believe this to be accurate.
 
I, too, would disagree with an amendment of this type. I don't see a pressing reason to get rid of civil cases or advisory opinions.
 
I wonder whether the Regional Assembly would be sanguine with an official recognition of the Fiqh in the form outlined?

Here are a few reasons why they may not.

1. The Fiqh has its basis in the Flemingovian Constitution and Flemingovian Mantra, documents which are fundamentally ideologically opposed to the current constitution.

2. Judges of the Fiqh are not elected and are not accountable. We are not bound by the Bill of Rights or any other document. So, for example, legally a judge might invoke the following clause:

17. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall be legally binding upon the parties of cases brought before the Fiqh.
Click to expand...

To impose all sorts of punishments on people, with legal backing.

Let's see... how about removal of the left hand? that, of course, would mean that the convicted would only be allowed to use the keys on the right hand side of the keyboard.

Or exile for a period of six months or more?

Or Death: removal of forum accounts, IP ban etc.

Or change of forum name to "Ipoopedinmypants" for three months?

the possibilities are endless, under this regulation.

CoE, you are trying to legislate on the hoof, and this leads to all sorts of unwelcome consequences. Better, I think, to leave things as they are until the glorious day when Flemingovianism is embraced in its entirety.
 
flemingovia:
I wonder whether the Regional Assembly would be sanguine with an official recognition of the Fiqh in the form outlined?

Here are a few reasons why they may not.

1. The Fiqh has its basis in the Flemingovian Constitution and Flemingovian Mantra, documents which are fundamentally ideologically opposed to the current constitution.

2. Judges of the Fiqh are not elected and are not accountable. We are not bound by the Bill of Rights or any other document. So, for example, legally a judge might invoke the following clause:

17. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall be legally binding upon the parties of cases brought before the Fiqh.
Click to expand...

To impose all sorts of punishments on people, with legal backing.

Let's see... how about removal of the left hand? that, of course, would mean that the convicted would only be allowed to use the keys on the right hand side of the keyboard.

Or exile for a period of six months or more?

Or Death: removal of forum accounts, IP ban etc.

Or change of forum name to "Ipoopedinmypants" for three months?

the possibilities are endless, under this regulation.

CoE, you are trying to legislate on the hoof, and this leads to all sorts of unwelcome consequences. Better, I think, to leave things as they are until the glorious day when Flemingovianism is embraced in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Since the Fiqh adheres to the Fleminingovian Religion, establishing a Fiqh to adjudicate legal matters under the TNP Legal Code and Constitution, such an arrangement would be in violation of rules involving Religious Liberties as per article 2 of the 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.
Click to expand...

However, if both participants in a civil dispute requested that the Court transmit the matter to a Fiqh upon mutual agreement of the litigants for mediation, that would probably not be an issue. :P
 
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
I wonder whether the Regional Assembly would be sanguine with an official recognition of the Fiqh in the form outlined?

Here are a few reasons why they may not.

1. The Fiqh has its basis in the Flemingovian Constitution and Flemingovian Mantra, documents which are fundamentally ideologically opposed to the current constitution.

2. Judges of the Fiqh are not elected and are not accountable. We are not bound by the Bill of Rights or any other document. So, for example, legally a judge might invoke the following clause:

17. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall be legally binding upon the parties of cases brought before the Fiqh.
Click to expand...

To impose all sorts of punishments on people, with legal backing.

Let's see... how about removal of the left hand? that, of course, would mean that the convicted would only be allowed to use the keys on the right hand side of the keyboard.

Or exile for a period of six months or more?

Or Death: removal of forum accounts, IP ban etc.

Or change of forum name to "Ipoopedinmypants" for three months?

the possibilities are endless, under this regulation.

CoE, you are trying to legislate on the hoof, and this leads to all sorts of unwelcome consequences. Better, I think, to leave things as they are until the glorious day when Flemingovianism is embraced in its entirety.
Click to expand...
Since the Fiqh adheres to the Fleminingovian Religion, establishing a Fiqh to adjudicate legal matters under the TNP Legal Code and Constitution, such an arrangement would be in violation of rules involving Religious Liberties as per article 2 of the 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.
Click to expand...

However, if both participants in a civil dispute requested that the Court transmit the matter to a Fiqh upon mutual agreement of the litigants for mediation, that would probably not be an issue. :P
Click to expand...
We wouldn't even need legislation of any kind for arbitration of disputes unless it was desired that the Court have power to enforce an arbitrator's decision. The key would remain that arbitration would have to be consensual on both sides and that both sides agreed in advance to accept the decision of the arbitration. It wouldn't even need to be the Fiqh, which some may object to on the grounds of the protections of Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights, as Roman has pointed out.

That may solve the civil cases in placing the court as an enforcer of a voluntary decision by arbitration rather than full blown cases in the Court.
 
I would like to think that the Regional Assembly would throw out ANY scheme where the courts of TNP enforced the ruling of any system or person who was not elected, not legally appointed and not accountable.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Would an amendment to this bill like the following fix that problem satisfactorily?
3. A new section of the Legal Code shall be appended to Chapter 3, and shall read as follows:
Section 3.4: The Fiqh
16. The Fiqh shall have the legal authority to arbitrate disputes between citizens of The North Pacific.
17. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall be legally binding upon the parties of cases brought before the Fiqh.
18. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall not be binding on any government body, nor shall they compel any government official to exercise the powers of their office in execution of the ruling.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

EDIT: R3n, if Flem likes this amendment, would you consider adding it to your bill, or do you think it ought to be proposed separately?
Click to expand...
On reflection, this would be deliciously fun for me. I accept with all my heart. Bring it on.
 
Actually, if two parties who had a conflict agreed to 'mediation' to resolve a conflict, they could do so with the proviso that the results of the arbitration be binding.
 
So this might work?

3. A new section of the Legal Code shall be appended to Chapter 3, and shall read as follows:
Section 3.4: The Fiqh
16. The Fiqh shall have the legal authority to arbitrate disputes between citizens of The North Pacific upon the mutual request of every party to the dispute.
17. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall be legally binding upon the parties of cases brought before the Fiqh.
18. The official rulings of the Fiqh shall not be binding on any government body, nor shall they compel any government official to exercise the powers of their office in execution of the ruling.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The amendment doesn't say anything about who runs the Fiqh - although everyone knows obviously, does this mean that legally anyone could run the Fiqh or something? There must be specifications...
 
The Fiqh would be empowered to make rules for it's own governance under the constitution. Since currently, the rules of the fiqh state that Flemingovia is in charge and heavily imply that he is the only one who can change the rules, I think we're on solid ground there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top