Request for Review and Injunction

[Grosseschnauzer]

May It Please The Court of The North Pacific:

Petitioner is a member in good standing of the Regional Assembly, and as such has standing to seek review and an injunction concerning the subject matter of this Petition for Review and Injunction.

Recently, the Regional Assembly passed the following bill in the form quoted below, found at http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7172982/ :

1. The clause in Chapter 4.3 of the Legal Code that describes the process of reopening nominations shall be replaced by the following four clauses, which shall be numbered separately:

• The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
• Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further 48 hours will be provided for declarations of candidacy.
• Candidates whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
• A second round of voting shall follow, and the option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

2. The following clause shall be struck:

• If there is only one candidate for a vacancy, a vote shall not be held and they will take office immediately upon the end of the candidacy declaration period.

3. The restriction on running for multiple offices in a single election cycle shall be struck.
4. The rest of the chapter shall be renumbered appropriately

The bill as passed has been “presented” to the Delegate, but at the time of posting, is still awaiting action by the Delegate. http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8133747&t=7010147

I ask the Court to find this bill to be unconstitutional in its current form because it fails to specify the exact changes to be made to the Legal Code, such as the numbering of added, amended and repealed clauses, and the exact legislative language necessary to accomplish the changes sought in the bill.

The bill as enacted fails to conform to the prescribed format for the codified Legal Code, as described in the preamble:

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.

The bill as enacted further fails to comply with the directions posted by the Speaker as to the formatting of bills in a pinned thread located in the main Regional Assembly forum http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7092407/:

[*]Write the text of your proposal. It doesn't have to be perfect the first time, but you need a rough draft to be going on with. It needs to be in formal, legislative language. If you're not sure what that sounds like, let a few veteran members of the RA look over your proposal before you post it. That's generally good advice anyway. This proposal might look something like this:

1. Chapter 7, Section 1 of the Legal Code will be re-titled as follows:

Section 7.1: Arms, Flag, Seal, and Turtle

2. Chapter 7, Section 1 of the Legal Code will be amended to add the following clause:

6. Eluvatar is adopted as the official turtle of the North Pacific.

3. Clauses 6-11 of Chapter 7 of the Legal Code will be re-numbered 7-12.

Further, in its current form, the bill leaves unspecified discretion in someone’s hands (presumably the Speaker) as to the legislative formatting of, and changes to, the language to be edited into the Legal Code, a practice that this Court held unconstitutional in its decision rendered at http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_21:

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.

(Emphasis added.)

Given the conclusion of the above quoted Court decision, the petitioner submits that the so-called “Reopen Nominations Fix Bill” is in violation of the Constitution, the Legal Code, and published procedures adopted by the Speaker of the Regional Assembly as to the format of legislative bills, and the lack of authority of the Speaker to unilaterally edit the formatting and editing of the Legal Code except as specified by a bill passed by the Regional Assembly and that is signed by the Delegate as a law.

The petitioner therefore the Court to enjoin any further action upon the bill or its possible editing into the Legal Code and to find upon review that the bill as passed by the Regional Assembly is unconstitutional.

 

[SillyString]

As the bill in question has already become law, and has entered into the Legal Code, the request for an injunction of the same is denied.

The request for review is under consideration.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

According to the time stamp in the New Legislation Notifications thread in the Delegate's Office, the legislation was not presented to the Delegate until

Mar 27 2014, 09:56 PM

Since my forum time is set to GMT/UTC, that is the time I assume the actual post was made.
This raises the question of whether the Delegate was properly provided a week to act on the bill since there is no post from the Delegate indicating an approval or a veto, and less than a week has passed since the bill was "presented" to the Delegate.
If the Legal Code was in fact edited to include this bill prior to the expiration of the week afforded the Delegate to act on the bill, then such act was in and of itself illegal, and I therefore renew my request for an injunction and request that the question of exactly when a "presentment" occurs to the Delegate to act on a bill passed by the Regional Assembly also be reviewed.

 

[SillyString]

4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.

Bolding is mine. The law is clear on the time frame in which the delegate can veto, and it is not tied to presentation.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

It would be contrary to common sense and logic for it not to be tied to when the bill is presented to the Delegate. Your interpretation would allow a Speaker to nullify the right of a Delegate to ever have the opportunity to sign or veto a billl, which is contrary to the constitutional provision giving the veto power to the Delegate in the first place.

This just reinforces the need for that issue to also be considered by the Court in full and not by one justice, especially one who has a political history of close association with the current clique in control of the chair of the Regional Assembly.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

As a former Speaker I'd just like to say that the tradition of presenting bills to the delegate for signature or veto was started in January 2013. Before that, if a delegate wanted to veto a bill, they typically when to the regional assembly and vetoed in the debate thread. The constitution doesn't require the delegate to veto in any specific place. The delegate is aware that the clock ticks from the time the bill is passed, as the constitutional specifically requires, and what's more, the Speaker indicated on what day the bill would take effect in his notification to the delegate.

If that is contrary to common sense and logic, then so is the constitution.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The Delegate has had a veto power in the past, but as long as the constitution is going to specifically give the Delegate a one week period to veto or sign and the practice of presentment started with the provisions that were added or amended to the Constitution as you referenced, then they need to have that full period the Constitution now specifies to exercise that veto. It's pretty clear that certain someones want that process manipulated to suit their convenience of the moment, and getting a court ruling on what the current language actually means is going to have to be a first step.

Then omnibus legislation can be taken to the R.A. to fix a lot of sloppy legislation that has been added to the legal code in the past year and a half. But we first need to get clarity on what the current provisions actually mean.

And COE I am also a former Speaker having been elected to the office several times, including presiding over the completion of the 2010 Constitutional revision by the R.A., as well as several time before that. And if you look in the right place, you will find that I was the participant at the Constitutional Convention of 2005 who first introduced the concept of a Speaker, as well as a Court of The North Pacific, into the debate leading to the 2005 Constitution. So parading your status as a former Speaker is of no more or less weight than my past experience in the office.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I wasn't using my status as a former Speaker to add weight to my post, but simply to justify my posting here when I'm neither a justice nor requesting a review. My experience here is relevant because I was the one who started the New Legislation thread.

The language of the constitution is unambiguous here. The delegate can veto within a week of the bill being passed. The bill was passed over a week ago. Presenting the legislation to the delegate (which is not yet a legal requirement) does not alter that timeline in any way.

 

[SillyString]

The Delegate has had a veto power in the past, but as long as the constitution is going to specifically give the Delegate a one week period to veto or sign and the practice of presentment started with the provisions that were added or amended to the Constitution as you referenced, then they need to have that full period the Constitution now specifies to exercise that veto.

The Constitution makes no reference to presenting bills, to the delegate or otherwise. It grants the delegate one week to veto a bill from the moment it is passed, and that week has elapsed. This is a clear, plain-text reading of the law, with no ambiguity.

Presenting any bill to the delegate is a voluntary practice which the Speaker's Office chooses to engage in. This voluntary practice is not mentioned within any of the Constibillocode, and its use therefore cannot amend the straightforward text of the Constitution itself which allocates a single, unalterable week within which the Delegate can veto - and within which past Delegates have vetoed bills without them being presented at all.

The injunction is a legal matter, not a political one. The court does not have the power to issue one in this case, and I have therefore rejected the request for one. If I were truly out to get you, Grosse, I would have rejected the entire request as is my right as a Justice. If you hadn't noticed, I did not. Not everything is a conspiracy.[note]For inquiries about the Ondervatar Conspiracy, press 1. For inquiries about the McMasterGuy Conspiracy, press 2. For inquiries about the Frattperialispiray, press 3. For inquiries about the IRConspiracy, press 4. To speak to a customer service representative, please hang up.[/note]

 

[SillyString]

The Court has a request of the petitioner.

Previously, the Court opined:

The Court opines that an affected party, with respect to one's the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.

The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation.

The claim as presented does not establish the petitioner as an affected party, and thus one with standing to bring a claim, but the Court does not wish to dismiss any meritorious request for review solely on a technicality of phrasing.

The Court therefore requests that the petitioner clarify and expand on his claim of standing in accordance with the above ruling. Specifically, the Court would like to know which rights of his the petitioner believes have been violated, and/or how he has been personally adversely affected by the law that was passed.

Such a clarification would allow us to better determine how to proceed. Thanks!

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Standing:

I am a member of the Regional Assembly, and a citizen of The North Pacific. As a legislator, I have taken an oath of membership in the Regional Assembly and am obligated as a member of the Regional Assembly to assure that the process of lawmaking as stated in the governing documents of The North Pacific, and the rules and procedures of the Regional Assembly are observed by me personally but by those with whom the power of administering the work of the Regional Assembly are properly exercised.
The matters complained of are capable of repetition and would otherwise evade review unless they are raised by a Regional Assembly member since there is no means of overruling a specific ruling or order of the Speaker under the current rules of procedure of the Regional Assembly.
In addition, the prior decision of the Court concerning errors in the legal code appears to have been ignored by the incumbent(s) in the Speaker's office and the editing of the Legal Code in an unlawful manner affects my work as a Regional Assembly member, and the work of all members of the Regional Assembly, since there are no corresponding remedies to the conduct of the Speaker other than by a petition for review and injunction.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

In addition, the prior decision of the Court concerning errors in the legal code appears to have been ignored by the incumbent(s) in the Speaker's office and the editing of the Legal Code in an unlawful manner affects my work as a Regional Assembly member, and the work of all members of the Regional Assembly, since there are no corresponding remedies to the conduct of the Speaker other than by a petition for review and injunction.

My apologies for asking, but at what point have I ignored that ruling?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

In the bill that is under dispute, since the bill itself didn't specify the clause numbers for each clause being added, amended or repealed, as noted in the OP.

(And there's a second bill about to go to vote with the exact same flaw.)

 

[SillyString]

The Court declines to accept this request for review.

We have multiple reasons for doing so. To start, the Court does not accept the petitioner's standing in this case. As a previous Court established, standing is dependent on one of three things being true - either the petitioner must allege the violation of specific rights granted to them, or the petitioner must state how a particular law, executive policy, or judicial policy has adversely affected them personally, or the petitioner must be a member of the Attorney General's office. In this case, the petitioner has objected to a procedure followed by the Regional Assembly and the Speaker's Office, but has not alleged the violation of specific rights. Without such an allegation, the petitioner does not qualify as an affected party in this matter.

Second, this request, as outlined by the petitioner, concerns the formatting choices for a particular bill and not the content of the amended law or the actions of any government official. Accordingly, the subject of the request is outside of the Court's jurisdiction, and this request for review would therefore not be accepted even if filed by a petitioner with standing.

It is not the Court's responsibility to police the formatting of bills within the Regional Assembly. Rather, that is a question which falls under the discretionary power granted to the Speaker's Office by the Constitution. So long as the policies of the Speaker's Office with respect to formatting do not violate the Legal Code, Constitution, or Bill of Rights, and so long as they do not prevent members of the RA from fulfilling their requirements, all such policies are beyond reproach from the Court. Moreover, methods invented by the Regional Assembly for qualifying bills to go to vote under those policies are similarly beyond reproach.

While the Court established in a previous ruling that all amendments to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code must be approved by the Regional Assembly, that ruling is not a restriction on the freedom of the Regional Assembly and the Speaker's Office to format desired legislation in a manner it feels best suits its purposes.

 

[punk d]

I apologize, but I am struggling with the reasoning to refuse this review.

If it please the court, is the court saying that the legislation that passed has no issues related to the prior ruling on "minor edits" which stated the speaker is not authorized to make minor edits?

In the OP, what was passed was the following:

1. The clause in Chapter 4.3 of the Legal Code that describes the process of reopening nominations shall be replaced by the following four clauses, which shall be numbered separately:
-The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
-Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further 48 hours will be provided for declarations of candidacy.
-Candidates whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
-A second round of voting shall follow, and the option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

I think it's safe to assume that all clauses of the legal code must be numbered, but this text does not number them.

It appears that this particular comment from the court reverses the ruling from the minor edits ruling. Justice String wrote:

It is not the Court's responsibility to police the formatting of bills within the Regional Assembly. Rather, that is a question which falls under the discretionary power granted to the Speaker's Office by the Constitution. So long as the policies of the Speaker's Office with respect to formatting do not violate the Legal Code, Constitution, or Bill of Rights, and so long as they do not prevent members of the RA from fulfilling their requirements, all such policies are beyond reproach from the Court. Moreover, methods invented by the Regional Assembly for qualifying bills to go to vote under those policies are similarly beyond reproach.

Justice Hileville, speaking for the court wrote in the minor edits ruling:

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.

By not including the numeration on the actual text of the passed Bill does not this constitute a "minor error" or in the words of the most recent Court decision "formatting" issues?

Further, Justice String stated that [EDIT] she did not accept the petitioner's standing. She cited that one of the following must be true:

• the petitioner must allege the violation of specific rights granted to them
• the petitioner must state how a particular law, executive policy, or judicial policy has adversely affected them personally
• the petitioner must be a member of the Attorney General's office
  [/quote]
  
  This petition seems to clearly fall into the first category wherein Grosse and other RA members are delegating their right to amend our legal documents to the Speaker which the court previously ruled unconstitutional. If a member of the RA's right is unconstitutionally delegated or at least there is a question surrounding such a delegation, I am finding difficulty understanding how the RA member does not have standing to bring such an issue to the Court.
  
  I thank the Court for its time.

 

[SillyString]

By not including the numeration on the actual text of the passed Bill does not this constitute a "minor error" or in the words of the most recent Court decision "formatting" issues?

The Court does not think so.

The ruling on the minor errors clause addressed the ability of the Speaker to amend the Legal Code under the instructions of the Court, and determined that that was constitutionally problematic. One cannot extrapolate from there to say that the Speaker amending the Legal Code under the instructions of the RA is unconstitutional. The Speaker of course does this all the time, whenever any legislation is passed or repealed.

The only concern in that case is whether those instructions are ambiguous, that is, whether they allow for more than one valid amendment to be made to the Legal Code. Describing the placement of an amendment with words rather than numbers is not inherently ambiguous, but rather is a stylistic choice that is outside of the court's jurisdiction to police.

This petition seems to clearly fall into the first category wherein Grosse and other RA members are delegating their right to amend our legal documents to the Speaker which the court previously ruled unconstitutional. If a member of the RA's right is unconstitutionally delegated or at least there is a question surrounding such a delegation, I am finding difficulty understanding how the RA member does not have standing to bring such an issue to the Court.

Rights are those items which are laid out in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I think the Court has decided to not allow the Regional Assembly any right to seek review of the conduct of the Speaker on its rulings and actions, even when the Speaker is acting in an arbitrary manner.

Consequently the only remedy left is an omnibus bill to correct the number of issues that have emerged in the Constitution and the Legal Code, including the non-existent standing requirement which is not included in the constitution or the legal code.

Since the Court refused to address the problem of legislation not in compliance with the minor edits provision which I had previously sought reviee as well as this refusal, I guess I will have to do the Court's refusal to do its job through the R.A.

Don't know when I will have a draft done since I have a lot on my plate in RL and as an admin this time of year, but it is on my to do list.

 

[Romanoffia]

(1) I think the Court has decided to not allow the Regional Assembly any right to seek review of the conduct of the Speaker on its rulings and actions, even when the Speaker is acting in an arbitrary manner.

(2) Consequently the only remedy left is an omnibus bill to correct the number of issues that have emerged in the Constitution and the Legal Code, including the non-existent standing requirement which is not included in the constitution or the legal code.

(3) Since the Court refused to address the problem of legislation not in compliance with the minor edits provision which I had previously sought reviee as well as this refusal, I guess I will have to do the Court's refusal to do its job through the R.A.

Don't know when I will have a draft done since I have a lot on my plate in RL and as an admin this time of year, but it is on my to do list.

(1) On the contrary, the Regional Assembly has the authority to review anything that occurs in the RA, including the Speaker's alleged actions via the legislative process or the process of amending the rules of the RA.

(2) Correct. It's not the only solution, but to ask the court to order such a correction might set a bad precedent in certain situations. The Court's job is to interpret laws and constitutional principles (which are, essentially the 'law of the land' in constitutional terms), not to be grammarians or syntactitions (I made that word up, by the way, but you get the idea).

(3) Again, the court has not refused to address this particular issue as mainly illustrated by this thread's existance.

The suggestion here is to simply introduce a bill to correct the numbering issue and pass that bill, and include a new edit in the bill. The numbering issue is largely immaterial to the functioning of the law as it is an obvious simple formatting error that has no bearing on the application or interpretation of the law. It's tantamount to a spelling error.

Failing the RA's ability to correct legislation for purely technical terms like numbering, it would be in the purvey of the court to rule on any questions of ambiguity that resulted. The legislative branch writes the law and the judicial branch interprets, upholds or strikes down a law based upon cases involving the law.