[Private] Grosse Request for Injunction and Review

First things first - I'm going to deny the injunction, as the bill in question has already entered into law, so the court does not have the power to stop it from happening.

Second, the request itself. I believe we should deny it, for the following reasons:

1) I am not sure the petitioner has standing. Simply being a member of the RA has not been considered sufficient to have standing to bring a request for review in the past.

2) I cannot see how the bill does not conform with the Legal Code formatting guide - it does not fail to use chapters and sections and clauses, it simply describes them as "Insert it here and number correctly" rather than laying out the exact numbers to use. As numbers are not technically parts of the law, and as other laws might pass between when a bill is done being edited and when its vote closes, this seems to encourage good legislation - not bad. There is also only a single operative clause in each numbered clause, a guideline I would note a great portion of the legal code does not abide by.

3) Suggestions from the speaker as to legislative formatting are just that - suggestions. They do not have the force of law, but exist solely to make the Speaker's job of putting things to vote and editing the Legal Code simpler. I can speak authoritatively on that, as I was Deputy Speaker at the time that post was written.

4) The reference to the minor errors clause is irrelevant. The Speaker is not left to use their discretion about what text to insert or remove, or where to do so - the bill lays it out explicitly, it simply does not provide numbered clauses. I believe the only course of action within this particular element of the request would be to file a request to review a government action, which would have to allege that the Speaker amended the Legal Code incorrectly according to the text of this bill - and then to make an argument as to how it should have been amended. But a review of the bill itself is not an approach that can be taken here.

Unless there are any objections from you two, I'll go ahead and deny the request for review as well.

Edit: I found the ruling on standing.

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.

Click to expand...

This procedure has not been followed. Simply being a member of the RA in good standing is not standing with respect to the court.

SillyString:

First things first - I'm going to deny the injunction, as the bill in question has already entered into law, so the court does not have the power to stop it from happening.

Second, the request itself. I believe we should deny it, for the following reasons:

1) I am not sure the petitioner has standing. Simply being a member of the RA has not been considered sufficient to have standing to bring a request for review in the past.

2) I cannot see how the bill does not conform with the Legal Code formatting guide - it does not fail to use chapters and sections and clauses, it simply describes them as "Insert it here and number correctly" rather than laying out the exact numbers to use. As numbers are not technically parts of the law, and as other laws might pass between when a bill is done being edited and when its vote closes, this seems to encourage good legislation - not bad. There is also only a single operative clause in each numbered clause, a guideline I would note a great portion of the legal code does not abide by.

3) Suggestions from the speaker as to legislative formatting are just that - suggestions. They do not have the force of law, but exist solely to make the Speaker's job of putting things to vote and editing the Legal Code simpler. I can speak authoritatively on that, as I was Deputy Speaker at the time that post was written.

4) The reference to the minor errors clause is irrelevant. The Speaker is not left to use their discretion about what text to insert or remove, or where to do so - the bill lays it out explicitly, it simply does not provide numbered clauses. I believe the only course of action within this particular element of the request would be to file a request to review a government action, which would have to allege that the Speaker amended the Legal Code incorrectly according to the text of this bill - and then to make an argument as to how it should have been amended. But a review of the bill itself is not an approach that can be taken here.

Unless there are any objections from you two, I'll go ahead and deny the request for review as well.

Edit: I found the ruling on standing.

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.

Click to expand...

This procedure has not been followed. Simply being a member of the RA in good standing is not standing with respect to the court.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. If there were standing in this case, and real damage were to be inflicted upon the petitioner, then the law might be stopped, but only on actual violation of the petitioner's rights.

On point 1, I agree.

On point 2, I agree.

On Point 3, I agree (I like the logic you used for this one!).

On Point 4, I agree because if there are any 'formatting' defects in the law, that is the RA's problem and not the Court's, and certainly not a reason to overturn a law in and of itself.

I concur on your conclusions and agree 100%.

Okay, I'll go ahead and turn my original post into a rejection of the request - Roman, do you mind if I phrase it as "The Court" doing things? Grosse has already accused me of bias and conspiracy, so it'd be nice to hide a little behind the institution.

Also: What do you make of Grosse's clarification on his standing?

By all means, us the term "The Court" which is actually the proper format when rendering a decision.

Gross' clarification of 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.

Click to expand...

True, but that is a legislative issue that would be handled by the RA itself. If a law is in error or there is a violation of procedures in the RA, then the RA has to correct their own errors. The Court interprets the laws as they are written and usually with original intent in min; the Court does not make laws or nullify laws that are poorly constructed, hence a poorly constructed law doesn't imply an unconstitutional law on the basis that the law is poorly constructed.

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.

Click to expand...

So, change the rules. Again, a matter for the RA to take up and rectify, not the Court. It is well withing the abilities of the RA to either legislate a solution, change their own rules and procedures, or remove a Speaker who doesn't meet their standards of performance.

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.

Click to expand...

If the errors are technically or actually unconstitutional, per se, then there might be an issue, but the argument presented by Gross is purely technical in terms of the construction or format of the law, and therefore it is the responsibility of the RA to correct the formatting, not the court.

There is also indeed a remedy to the conduct of the Speaker - it's called impeachment, which is in the purvey of any RA member to initiate such a recall.

In pure terms of definition, standing is usually defined thus:

"Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. Specific laws usually define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable."

Now, if you really wanted to poke a stick in his eye, you could suggest filing a civil suit to remedy the situation, but, oops!, no one wants Civil Matters to even exist nor the Court to even rule on civil issues, and the RA has gone so far as attempting to amend the constitution so that remedying such matters be abolished altogether.

Essentially, his case is a Civil matter, not a criminal nor constitutional matter. So, the only remedy to such matters is to create a Civil Code that contains laws that the Court can adjudicate such matters. But, oh, no, no one, especially Gross, wants to have Civil Code that would remedy such a situation that he is griping about. He made his bed, he can sleep in it.

In a nutshell, 'Standing' only pertains to civil law, not criminal or constitutional law. If there is no such thing as civil code (non-criminal issues), the can be no such thing as standing. Hence, no civil laws and you have totally nullified the use of 'standing' altogether. So, technically speaking, there can be no such consideration of 'standing' at all as a basis for any legal acting because we have no civil code in TNP. See what I am driving at here?

Aren't a right perfect bastard?

Here's what I'd like to say:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Very nice. I think we can go with your wording.