Looking around the Office, Jack can't see any guidance on how to submit a Constituitional Review so he just uses the same form as submitted to the Court.
He submits the form and awaits the initial response.Request for Law Review:I hereby request that the Court review the following
actionsituation:I believe that the above situation violates the following portion of the Constitution:The Most World Assembly Endorsements in The North Pacific
[table=3,The Most World Assembly Endorsements in The North Pacific]1.[c]The North Pacifican Delegate of Lord Ravenclaw[c]1019[c]2.[c]The Empire of Cheongji[c]890[c]3.[c]The Kingdom of Plemobria[c]884[c]4.[c]The Monarchy of Guslantis[c]852[/table]I believe that it has violated the Constitution in the following way:The North Pacific Consitution - Article 3
10.. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
12. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
The Constitution states in Article 3, section 10 that the Vice Delegate has the second most endorsements. The Monarchy of Guslantis who is our current Vice Delegate is 4th.
The Constitution in Article 3, section 12 goes on to state that the Vice Delegate will be voted for every 4 months but this contradicts Article 3, section 10 which expressly states that the Vice Delegate has the second most endorsements which could lead to a situation, maybe as shown above, where the Vice Delegate is voted for by a majority and yet has less than the required World Assembly endorsements.
This action by a government has adversely affected me in the following way:
There is no adverse affect on my Nation er se. But the ramifications of this situation for all Nations in The North Pacific could be far reaching and extremely damaging. I am seeking to clarify what appears to be a potential contradiction in the Constitution, and a situation that appears to go against the Constitution.
If you would like to read the transcript of the associated Court Hearing you will see that the Chief Justice has advised for this to be dealt with in this office.