Request for Review: Security Council removals

[falapatorius]

I hereby request that the Court review the following action by a government official:

I regret to inform the RA that Kiwi is no longer a Security Council member. He has not logged onto the forum for over two weeks, and so has abandoned his government office, per the Legal Code, Chapter 4:

7. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it. An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.

As of yesterday, he has unfortunately been removed from the SC.

I believe that the above action has violated the following portions of the Legal Code:

7. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it. An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.

4. The influence requirement for members of the Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 270, though when a nation's influence score within The North Pacific is unknown as the displayed score may include significant influence within other regions, an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Vassal may be substituted.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 200 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
6. The Vice Delegate must maintain an endorsement level of at least 75 per cent of the Delegates endorsement count.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.

11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position, the Vice Delegate must warn them, and if the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.

I believe that it violates the Legal Code in the following way:

At present, two Security Council members (Kiwi and Ator People) have been removed from their position pursuant to the Chapter 4, Secion 4.2, Clause 7 "vacancy" provision.

The issues prompting this request:

1. Does the "vacancy" provision apply to members of the Security Council?

Chapter 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is dedicated specifically to Regional Security Law (as undertaken by the Security Council). These can be taken as rules to govern the Security Council. Council requirements are spelled out in Chapter 5, Regional Security Law, Section 5.1, of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, and there is no mention of logging into the TNP Forum at least every two weeks as a Council requirement.

Furthermore, even if the Court rules the vacancy provision does apply, Section 5.3, Clause 11, of the Codified Law of The North Pacific warrants warning them first. A Council member may subsequently be suspended (not removed), if they fail to come back into compliance (within eight days) with the requirements of their position. Therefore:

2. Does the "vacancy" provision (as it pertains to removal) take precedence over the Security Council enforcement provisions (as laid out in Chapter 5: Regional Security Law; Section 5.3: Enforcement)?

The petitioner claims standing pursuant to:

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.

The petitioner humbly requests the Court expedite the acceptance/denial of this Request for Review. There may be a danger of further removals of Security Council members. Thank you.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Thank you for your request.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

The Court would like clarification of the requesters standing in this review. How are you an affected party, essentially?

 

[falapatorius]

The Court would like clarification of the requesters standing in this review. How are you an affected party, essentially?

If it please the Court:

The security of the North Pacific affects all it's member nations. Multiple removals of Security Council members in a short period of time can compromise regional security, and the nations residing therein. I hope that is sufficient clarification for the Court.

 

[falapatorius]

Could the Court please update the status of this request? It's been 7+ days now. Thank you.

 

[falapatorius]

Now that the CJ chair has been officially vacated, will another member of the Court take up this request?

 

[SillyString]

The Court would like clarification of the requesters standing in this review. How are you an affected party, essentially?

If it please the Court:

The security of the North Pacific affects all it's member nations. Multiple removals of Security Council members in a short period of time can compromise regional security, and the nations residing therein. I hope that is sufficient clarification for the Court.

I think he was probably looking for something in line with the prior Court ruling on standing (as I imagine any other moderating justice would also do):

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.

(Bolding is mine).

 

[falapatorius]

Given the Court's recent clarification of an 'affected' party vis a vis requests for review, I again claim standing pursuant to:

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.

and:

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.

Will the Court consider this petition for review?

 

[Severisen]

We are looking into the matter, but appreciate your patience while the referenced ruling is resolved.

When we are able to address the matter, I will take over as moderating justice.

 

[falapatorius]

Thank you Justice Severisen. I will defer to the Court as to the timetable on this matter.

 

[Chasmanthe]

With the court's permission, I would like to submit a brief on this issue.

I co-wrote the 2013 version of security council law with Eluvatar and SillyString.

I raised this exact issue in 2014 and I was slammed down by Democratic Donkeys.

The issue is straightforward:

A nation that is a government official can lose their office by not logging into the forum for two weeks. This is because it causes their office to be deemed abandoned and vacant.

The first question is does a security counsellor constitute said government official? I think the law is very clear that it does.

The purpose of the security council law is to govern all matters pertaining to the security council. This is one of the few matters I can speak on confidently because I was a co-author of that legislation, I know it's purpose. I would further contend that the purpose of the legislation is documented in the law itself.

The second question is does the security council law, as the governing article of security council matters, take precedence over the vacancy law? This is where the uncertainty and anxiety lies. On examination of the laws themselves, the former is incomparably more directly applicable than the latter, and the court must surely, in its wisdom, find that security council law does not trump the vacancy law.

If the security council law had been more explicitly written, with these considerations in mind, then a case could be made to exempt security counsellors from abandonment. The chief flaw of the security council law is it does not consider the removal of its members due to abandonment. There are in fact other eventualities, in addition to abandonment, that the security council law does not handle. They would not have been a problem if the authors and the regional assembly had taken greater care in the drafting, and in the revisiting of the law that they enacted.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I do not speak for Chief Justice Severisen, but now that the Court has officially addressed the "standing" question with respect to requests for review, I would expect this proceeding will proceed in short order.

 

[Severisen]

As the court could not rule on standing in the previous RFR, as it was not the reason for the RFR, the "affected party" status must therefore be the standard used in determining Standing. As the petitioner is not the directly affected party, the RFR is at this time denied. If the members of the SC who were removed, or the AG's office desire file this RFR, the matter would then come before the court.

I apologize on behalf of the court in the delay, and will endeavor to make sure such a delay does not again occur while I am on the bench.

 

[falapatorius]

I thank the Court for addressing this R4R. I humbly request the Court cite the relevant legislation/rules with respect to standing. I presume that this is the basis of the Court's finding on the petitioner's standing:

1. The Court will try all criminal 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.

I will note that the language of the Constitution does not qualify an 'affected party' as directly or otherwise. Justice Grosseschnauzer addressed this here (albeit without consensus):

We find that a party may have a directly or indirectly affected interest to support their standing to present a request for review based upon Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, and under this finding, the petitioner has standing to bring this proceeding;

Moreover, the Adopted Court Rules state:

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.

However, as Justice Severisen correctly pointed out, standing was not the focus of this R4R.

 

[punk d]

That you do not have standing in this case is very troubling seeing as you outlined why you have standing.

I would like to request the AG submit this request for review on behalf of those who apparently cannot.

 

[SillyString]

Moreover, the Adopted Court Rules state:

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.

Just because anybody has the potential to have standing doesn't mean that anybody has standing - anybody can submit a request, but they're not guaranteed it will be accepted.

That you do not have standing in this case is very troubling seeing as you outlined why you have standing.

Except he hasn't outlined how he has standing as per the Court's official, legally binding ruling, the relevant parts of which are referenced in the RFR template and were omitted in the petition.

 

[Severisen]

A ruling, I'll note, that Punk D joined here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_24

and also quoted and bolded by SillString earlier in the thread.

I would be interested in hearing how the petitioner feels their rights were violated with these ejections.

 

[falapatorius]

I would be interested in hearing how the petitioner feels their rights were violated with these ejections.

I would quote this part of the ruling the Court has cited:

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.

To follow the current Court's ruling vis a vis a 'directly' affected party, the removed SC members (and the AG), would have standing for this R4R. My OP would characterize me as an 'indirectly' affected party (although if TNP security was compromised, I would be directly affected).

However, the quoted section of the cited ruling does not use the words directly or indirectly. The Constitution doesn't either. The opinion of a previous Court in the cited ruling also concludes:

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.

I'm surprised by the use of the word 'personally'. That could mean anything. Which brings me to:

The Court finds that flemingovia was entitled to request a review of the Election Commisioner's refusal to list Astarial on the ballot. While Flemingovia was not a candidate in the election, the Court is charged with "resolving conflicts or ambiguities" in the law.

Flemingovia was not a personally affected party (if affected at all), yet was given standing to 'resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the Law'. I claim that as grounds for standing in this R4R. Specifically, the 'vacancy' clause in Section 4.2 of the Legal Code, conflicts with Section 5.3; Clause 11 of the Legal Code. The vacancy clause applies to elected or appointed officials. SC members are neither. They are confirmed by the RA.

Furthermore, SC requirements are explicitly spelled out in Chapter 5; Regional Security Law of the Legal Code. Remedies for failure to maintain these requirements are also listed.

The petitioner asks the Court to reconsider it's finding on standing in this matter.

 

[SillyString]

The petitioner asks the Court to reconsider it's finding on standing in this matter.

Why not just challenge the standing ruling directly? I think most people (including me!) hate it.

 

[punk d]

A ruling, I'll note, that Punk D joined here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/pages/laws/#.idx_24

and also quoted and bolded by SillString earlier in the thread.

I would be interested in hearing how the petitioner feels their rights were violated with these ejections.

Your link goes to a ruling joined not by myself but by Hileville drafted by Sanc.

It's probably a link issue, so I think you're looking at a later ruling where the court stated:

Flemingovia was unclear how to interpret the law surrounding legal candidates and wanted to ensure that the Elections Commission’s interpretation with respect to Astarial’s candidacy was indeed the correct interpretation. As a voter in the election in question, the choice of candidates directly affected Flemingovia, as well as all voters in the election, and thus Flemingovia met the requirement defined in the Constitution.

If you all wish to see the discussion on this ruling, you can do so here in the declassified section of the courts:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7038122/1/#new

I made a comment in the discussion then:

To me it's about the term "affected". Flem can't vote for the man on the moon because that person is not eligible to vote. So if he were to ask us to review why he can't vote for the man on the moon, i'd be inclined to reject such a review request. However, in this particular case Astarial wanted to run for office, Flem wanted to vote for her, but the EC rejected her candidacy. Flem then took his issue to the courts which seemed to me very reasonable.

I just really don't want to pigeonhole us or future courts by 'defining' affected. Maybe that's copping out but it's a bit subjective.

The first paragraph to me is the definition of being an 'affected' party, but I would venture some might disagree with this assessment and at the time, I did not want the court to narrowly define what affected meant. Keeping it broad provided future courts latitude.

Most of those courts have decided to stay in a fairly narrow lane, imo.

 

[punk d]

The petitioner asks the Court to reconsider it's finding on standing in this matter.

Why not just challenge the standing ruling directly? I think most people (including me!) hate it.

You hated most rulings of that court and yet many remain.



Seriously though, the ruling isn't the problem, imo, the adopted rules are the problem. When formality trumps substance - we got issues.

But we probably won't agree on this point so let's save it for another thread.

 

[SillyString]

You hated most rulings of that court and yet many remain.

Of course they remain. Nobody has challenged them yet.

One down, forty to go...

 

[punk d]

You hated most rulings of that court and yet many remain.

Of course they remain. Nobody has challenged them yet.

One down, forty to go...

...or maybe they weren't as bad as you thought/think.

 

[Severisen]

That is odd. The link system is bizarre. But yes, that is the ruling to which I refer.

 

[falapatorius]

Why not just challenge the standing ruling directly? I think most people (including me!) hate it.

Well.. you were in the AG's office awhile back.. It might have sped up your other R4R. Maybe.

On topic: Has the Court reached a determination as to whether this R4R will be re-examined?

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Why not just challenge the standing ruling directly? I think most people (including me!) hate it.

Well.. you were in the AG's office awhile back.. It might have sped up your other R4R. Maybe.

On topic: Has the Court reached a determination as to whether this R4R will be re-examined?

SillyString is still the Associate Attorney General for Constitutional Affairs.

 

[falapatorius]

SillyString is still the Associate Attorney General for Constitutional Affairs.

Hmm.. I was under the impression Silly would have to resign that position when she became VD, and now Acting Delegate:

Article 7. General Provisions

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.

13. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

 

[St George]

SillyString is still the Associate Attorney General for Constitutional Affairs.

Hmm.. I was under the impression Silly would have to resign that position when she became VD, and now Acting Delegate:

Article 7. General Provisions

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.

13. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

Article 7. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by government officials in the executive category.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by government officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by government officials in the judicial category .
6. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.
7. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
8. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one constitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
10. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
11. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
12. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated elected offices may be established by law.
13. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

In italics is what you just posted. In bold is what you 'missed'.

 

[Severisen]

The consensus of the Justices is that you do not meet the standard of "Affected Party."