Roman For Justice (Special Election)

Sil Dorsett:
Given the following cases...

Request for Review: the ability of the RA to violate the sovereignty of residents
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9092500/
Click to expand...

The proposal that was to be voted on is largely absurd, but that is largely irrelevant. I would consider the proposal presented by Mall to change that section of the legal code as a constitutional violation as per Lord Ravenclaw's explanations in the Request For Review concerning mandated nation pre-titles.

However, under item five of the Request for Review asking "Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?" we see the following:


"I would request that the Court order an injunction preventing this proposal from coming to vote until such a time that the Court has reviewed the legality of such an proposal as so far allowed by the Bill of Rights and whereby this proposal would be able to become law."

This is where I have a problem - The Court is being asked to prevent a bill in the RA from coming to a vote until the legality/constitutionality of said proposal can be determined. Determining the constitutionality of a bill before it is voted on as a condition of the bill being allowed to be voted on at all is not a function of or power of the Court for the following reasons:

1. For the Court to determine whether or not a bill should come to a vote is a violation of Separation of Powers because the Court would essentially be assuming the role of the Speaker of The Regional Assembly and engaging in the purview of the Legislative Branch of Government. Whether or not something comes to a vote before the RA is the RA's business according to the RA's "House Rules" for lack of a better term.

2. The Court can review the constitutionality of a Bill only after a particular Bill has become law (i.e.: passed by the RA), and then only if the law is challenged by an individual who has standing in the sense that said individual making an appeal to the Court for Judicial Review is directly affected or actually affected by a real application of said law. Absurd laws can be passed, but can only be challenged in court by a person of standing who is directly affected by an actual application of the law. If the law is never actually applied, the law may be unconstitutional, but the only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law is if the law is actually applied. Essentially, in a nutshell, a law cannot be challenged as per constitutionality until that law is actually enforced.

While I would not reject such a Request for Review out of hand, I would have to decide that asking the Court to issue and Injunction to prevent a vote in the RA would be in fact acting the Court to assume a Legislative function and therefore, no Injunction to prevent a vote could constitutionally be issued by the Court.

Precedent is that the Court does not rule of Regional Assembly matters as noted in your second question.



[quote0Request for Review; The scope of the review power of the court and court dictatorship
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9100005/[/quote]


Court actions are not reviewable by the COurt, however, they are reviewable by the Regional Assembly through Constitutional Amendment. The Court's powers are clearly stated in the Constituton of TNP, and if the Regional Assembly does not like the Court's actions or decisions, the RA has the ability to remedy a situation by Constitutional Amendment. This is part of checks and balances.

We have a system in which there are checks and balances designed to prevent one branch of government from gaining supremacy. For one branch of government to gain supremacy over the other branches of government and thus act as a dictatorial entity would be very hard to accomplish without the cooperation of at least one other branch of government which is willing to surrender its constitutional powers (and this would be tantamount to revolution at best and total corruption at worst).

Remember, one of the powers of the RA is to by Constitutional Amendment to nullify a decision by the Court. By the same token, the Executive Branch can nullify a law passed by the RA by not enforcing a law. And, again, by the same token, the Court and RA can nullify the Executive Branch by impeachment or otherwise bring criminal charges, and so on.

The only way that you could possibly end up with a de faction dictatorship of the Court is if a majority of the Justices were to act in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in collusion with someone who brings charges before the court with the intent of thwarting checks and balances.

So, essentially, to paraphrase the definition of the Court in a system involving Checks and Balances, the Constitution of The North Pacific gives The Court the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the Executive Branch; The Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of passed by The Regional Assembly, and the rational interpretation of the Constitution and laws as far at their constituionality; and adjudication of criminal matters. Those are the only powers of the Court and any exertion of powers beyond that scope are unconstitutional, and thus can be challenged by other branches of government by either action or inaction (challenging the constitutionality of the action of the court either by appeal, refusal to enforce, or constitutional amendment.

In simple terms, if the Court acts in a dictatorial fashion, it is only because one or more of the other branches of government is not doing their constitutional duty and allowing the Court to act as a dictator. Just because a decision is unpopular does not mean that the decision is dictatorial - the legislative branch can change the Constitution to remedy it without so much as a by-your-leave from the Court (which has no power or authority to prevent a constitutional amendment from being voted on).

My decision would have been exactly as the Court did in fact decide this matter.


Request for Review: The Court's Illegal Review of an RA Proposal
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9093434/

...how would you have ruled in each of these?
Click to expand...

The Court has the authority to review a ham sandwich if it so desires. The Court is there to entertain any and all Requests for Review no matter how absurd they may or may not be. The Court has the authority to reject Requests for Review so long as their is a legitimate constitutional reason or a legitimate legal reason to do so (such as standing or outrageous or erroneous interpretation by the appellant). In practical terms, the Court has wide latitude in matters of Judicial Review for the purposes to preventing clutter - and by the same token, the other branches have the means to alter this by legislation or executive action or inaction (which throws it back into the hands of the other branches of government).

I would decide that the Court has the right to entertain any and all Requests for Review no matter the merits, and they also have the right to rule on such matters as they see fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top