Request for Review

[Alunya]

If it may please the Court, I have some questions concerning the characteristic of being obeyable about law in The North Pacific.

I have standing in this matter as a Citizen of The North Pacific.

As Membership in the Regional Assembly is a Privilege and not a Right, one cannot reasonably perceive that the rights of the petitioner have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies.

An affected party also includes those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government. In this instance, those affected by Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 would be Regional Assembly Members who reject the validity of said clause and are concerned about prosecution for Gross Negligence (Ch. 1, Sec 1.8, Clause 23) for violation of their Oath of Office (Ch.6, Sec. 6.1, Clause 2). As the petitioner resigned their Membership from the Regional Assembly, the petitioner is no longer affected, adversely or otherwise, by those laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government in this instance.

The petitioner does note that the request for application for Membership in the Regional Assembly ought to give grounds to any nation in The North Pacific to request a review of the terms and conditions for said Membership, of which this query would be one such instance. The previous court ruling does not allow for such a broad scope of standing as to make such an inquiry in what is, at its essence, a contract between the applicant and The North Pacific. The petitioner shall have to address this limited scope in standing before this particular matter may be brought before the Court.

Therefore, under the limited scope of standing as specified by the previous court ruling, the petitioner does not have standing.

I thank the Court for its time.

At question is whether Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is a law that has, in any sense, the characteristic of being obeyable. The clause in question is highlighted in the subsection reproduced for your convenience below:

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.
15. All nations are guaranteed freedom of expression of all, any, or no religious belief, and that freedom shall not be curtailed.
16. The Flemingovian religion shall receive no financial or tax advantages through being the religion of The North Pacific.
17. Holidays of the Flemingovian religion shall be observed regionally, and all nations shall have the right to take a day off work, unpaid, on those holidays. Government officials are excluded from the effects of this clause.
18. No nation shall serve on the cabinet or any other appointed government position by virtue of their status in the Flemingovian religion.
19. Flemingovian officials may participate, as invited by the delegate, at all state functions.

The import of this question is raised in regards to Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 2 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, mandating that all Regional Assembly members swear and maintain their Oath during their (indefinite) term of service. Said Oath requires Members to swear obedience to her laws, the pronoun her being a reference to The North Pacific. This clause is reproduced for your convenience below:

2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

The question of whether Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is an obeyable law is pertinent in light of Chapter 1, Section 1.8, Clause 23, defining "Gross Misconduct". This clause is reproduced for your convenience below:

23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

The petitioner (Alunya) denies the validity of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 on moral grounds in accordance with religious convictions, and has resigned from the Regional Assembly to avoid breaking said oath.

Opinions by others have been offered here, here and here that claim that the clause in question cannot be disobeyed.

In asking the Court if Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is a law that has, in any sense, the characteristic of being obeyable, it may be useful to address the following salient questions:

• Do there exist laws that lack the characteristic of being obeyable?
• Is a law that lacks the characteristic of being obeyable enforceable?
• If so, is Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific such a law either in terms of being obeyable or enforceable?
• If so, can there be any way to disobey such a law?
• Is a refusal to accept the validity of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific in any way construable as a failure to obey the law, or alternatively, as a disobedience of the law?
• Can a refusal to accept the validity of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific in any way be prosecuted?

I ask these questions of the Court to determine once and for all, the position of The North Pacific about Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific with regards to the characteristic of being obeyable.

I thank you for any consideration you may give this request.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Flemingovia]

Since when does "I'm a citizen" count as standing?

This question is addressed to the court, not the petitioner.

 

[Romanoffia]

May it please the Court:

Any nation in The North Pacific and Citizens of the North Pacific under the Constitution and Legal code has a certain Constitutional and Legal Rights under the same. Any time a nation finds itself in conflict or possible conflict with a given legal provision or constitutional provision, they would have standing, especially if they call attention to such a potential conflict which directly or indirectly affects them.


From to Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

In regards to the issue of the Oath for membership in the Regional Assembly:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

I have highlighted the phrase "obedience to her laws" to give context to the following questions:


1. Is a Cultural Declaration, such as an Official State Religion enforceable as Law in the Legal Code?

2. If an individual or nation required by such a Law to actually recognise the Official State Religion?

3. If an individual or nation refuses to recognise the Official State Religion, does that constitute a Criminal Offense?


4. Does the Oath required for Membership in the Regional Assembly require an individual or nation to recognise any or all cultural declarations, and would open refusal to recognise such cultural declarations constitute a violation of the RA Oath or the Legal Code?

5. If an individual/nation takes the Oath of Membership for The Regional Assembly considered in violation of that oath if they by act, private or public statement refuse to recognise any State Religion and refuse to be bound by said State Religion?


Given that the Bill of Rights states clearly:

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.

Does the Oath required for membership in the Regional Assembly require someone to recognise or otherwise be bound by Cultural Declarations?

Clarifying these points would go a long way in clearing up Alunya's essential questions.

 

[SillyString]

I have standing in this matter as a Citizen of The North Pacific.

The Court requests that the petitioner clarify their standing, bearing in mind the relevant ruling from a prior Court:

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.

 

[Alunya]

I realize I have filed a Request for Review when a Request for Clarification about an ambiguity in the law is more appropriate.

I apologize for the error, and have since filed a Request for Clarification.

>^,,^<
Alunya