Request for Review: The Power of the Regional Assembly to define emergency situations

[Clean Land]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

Chapter 9 of the Legal Code:

Chapter 9: Emergency Situations

Section 9.1: Emergency Powers
1. The Regional Assembly may declare an actual emergency by majority vote. Votes on declaring emergencies must be expedited, and may last no longer than three days.
2. Concurrent with the declaration of an emergency, or anytime afterward while the emergency is ongoing, the Regional Assembly may, by majority vote, make both binding and nonbinding recommendations related to the ongoing emergency to government officials regarding an appropriate course of action, enforcement of regional laws, or other similar matter.

Section 9.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Section 9.3: Forum Access
9. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
10. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.
11. During a forum access emergency, no resident may be penalized for failing to take actions for which access to the forum is required.
12. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Section 9.4: WA Delegacy
13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
14. Delegacy emergencies that fall outside the scope of the above clause may be declared by majority vote of the RA only with the recommendation of the legal or acting Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council.
15. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
16. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

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.

Article 1. Bill of Rights

1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.

Article 9. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

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

The Bill of Rights give government authorities the ability to act with more broad powers with the consent of The Assembly, in an emergency situation.
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution enshrine a right for the Regional Assembly to define or declare emergency situations.
Amendments to the Bill of Rights necessiate a three-quarters majority vote.
Amendments to the Constitution necessiate a two-thirds majority vote.
The unrestricted allowance declaration of a situation to be an emergency is a change to the effects of the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution, and thus a temporary amendment, and since the Bill of Rights does only allow the Assembly to enact such changes in the event of an actual emergency, it can be reasonably assumed that any declaration of emergency necessiates a three-quarters majority vote in the Assembly, pursuant to Article 9 Clause 2 of the Constitution; and that any motion with the force of law enacted by the Regional Assembly to empower its regional officers to bend the constution or the Bill of Rights necessiates a two-thirds majority vote or a three-quarters majority vote.

Thus, the arbitrary enactment of emergency situations and enactment of laws about emergency situations with simple majority vote is unconstitutional.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

There are no prior rulings of the Court that support my request for review.

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated. If you are submitting this request in your capacity as the Attorney General or their designee, please note that here instead.

My rights as citizen of The North Pacific to have greater weight in opposing matters amending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, pursuant to Article 9 of the Constitution, have been violated.

5. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

There is currently a motion in the Assembly to declare an emergency situation by majority vote:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10101305&t=9092099

 

[Eluvatar]

If at all possible, should this request for review be accepted I would appreciate the opportunity to submit a friend of the court brief regarding this request for review.

 

[Mall]

If at all possible, should this request for review be accepted I would appreciate the opportunity to submit a friend of the court brief regarding this request for review.

I echo this request and thank the Court for its time.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

It would assist the Court in its consideration of whether to accept this request if the petitioner could further elaborate on their claim to standing. Particularly, the Court would appreciate elaboration in respect of whether the provision relied on by the petitioner creates a right which can be relied on for the purposes of standing and whether there are any other rights the petitioner considers have been abridged.

The petitioner may find the ruling of the Court dealing with the question of standing to be of assistance, it can be found: here

 

[Clean Land]

It would assist the Court in its consideration of whether to accept this request if the petitioner could further elaborate on their claim to standing. Particularly, the Court would appreciate elaboration in respect of whether the provision relied on by the petitioner creates a right which can be relied on for the purposes of standing and whether there are any other rights the petitioner considers have been abridged.

The petitioner may find the ruling of the Court dealing with the question of standing to be of assistance, it can be found: here

Further elaboration, as requested by the Court:
Section 9.1. of the Legal Code authorizes the Assembly to enact any binding recommendations in emergency situations with majority vote, and it authorizes the Assembly to declare an emergency without any prerequisites, also with majority vote.
Thus, the law would potentially allow the suspension of all my rights from the Bill of Rights with simple majority.
That this is not just a theoretical problem is shown by the recent motion here which not only calls for the Assembly to declare an emergency situation, but also already calls for the Regional Assembly to enact a measure which glaringly obviously contradicts Clause 1 of the Bill of Rights by simple majority vote.
If the Regional Assembly were to enact additional measures against me, for example, that call for my forum ban without any legal reasoning and remove all my rights and abilities to complain about this in the court, and if the Attorney General would believe these abrogations of my rights with simple majority vote to be legal, then I would be unable to pursue this matter.
Finally, Clause 9 of the Constitution gives my vote more weight if I vote against a constitutional change or a Bill of Rights change; these additional clauses are obviously temporary changes to the Bill of Rights, against votes are not to be given additional weight according to 9.1 of the Legal Code, thus, the weight of my vote will not be correctly counted in that vote. Which means I am affected by this situation.

 

[Mall]

In light of the revised Request for Review I would like to once again offer my services to the Court to submit an amicus curiae brief outlining prior case law which deals with Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights which is directly relevant to the current request. I thank the Court for its time.

 

[bootsie]

The Court has decided to dismiss this request for review because it believes the petitioner does not have standing.