[R4R] Acting Speaker

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The oath of office by @Koopa103 for "Speaker of the Regional Assembly":
I, Koopa103, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Speaker of the Regional Assembly, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of Speaker of the Regional Assembly, with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
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?

I would like to address the legality of the oath in two parts. Firstly, concerning whether Koopa was eligible to take the oath at all:
Section 3 of the Regional Assembly Rules:
3. When there is a vacancy or absence in the position of Speaker, the Deputy Speaker will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the vacancy or absence, respectively. When there is simultaneously a vacancy or absence in the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker is simultaneously vacant, the citizen who is available, has the longest period of citizenship, does not decline the position, and is not otherwise prohibited by law will assume the powers and duties of the office of the Speaker for the duration of the simultaneous vacancy or absence.
In the emphasised part, the procedure for if there is a vacancy in the position of Speaker is described. However, as it only takes into account when there is one Deputy Speaker, the Standing Procedures of the Regional Assembly is a legal document which includes a section that supplements these rules in the case there are multiple Deputy Speakers:
Standing Procedures of the Regional Assembly:
Acting Speaker Procedures
  1. The Speaker may, at any time, designate a Deputy Speaker to serve as Acting Speaker in the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Speaker.
  2. The Acting Speaker will assume all the powers and duties of the Speaker's Office when the office is vacant.
  3. If no Acting Speaker is designated, the Deputy Speaker with the longest tenure (since their most recent appointment) shall be Acting Speaker when the office is vacant.
Koopa appears to have taken the oath because it was assumed no Acting Speaker was designated, so as the Deputy Speaker with the longest tenure, they become the Acting Speaker. However, former Speaker Deropia had appointed St George as "Acting Speaker until I am able to return on a more stable basis" on March 26. Although they announced their return on April 8, it is clear they have not in fact returned on a more stable basis, as evident from the fact that they have vacated the office due to not posting on the forums for 30 days. Therefore, it can be argued that @St George is still designated Acting Speaker, and that they should become Acting Speaker due to Deropia's vacation of the office.

In the second part, I'd like to address whether the oath is valid, if Koopa was eligible to take the oath:
Article 6 of the Constitution:
1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices.
Article 6 of the Constitution defines constitutionally-mandated elected officials. Notice that the terminology here is “Speaker” and not “Speaker of the Regional Assembly”. In fact, “Speaker of the Regional Assembly” is referenced nowhere in the Constitution.
Section 4.1 of the Legal Code:
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.

I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
The oath of office lists two separate areas where an individual must identify their government position in order for it to be complete. If “Speaker of the Regional Assembly” is not a government position, the oath is arguably invalid.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
None that I am aware of.

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.
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights guarantees each nation in The North Pacific “the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.” If the nations do not understand who should be serving the duties of a Constitutionally mandated government office, and thus does not know how this government official should be held accountable, this right could have been violated.

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
As stated above, there is a compelling regional interest in understanding who should be serving the duties of this office currently.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
 
Last edited:

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
I deny this request for review.

I do not think the Petitioner has established standing as an affected party. To have standing as an affected party a petitioner must show that there is a clear connection between the act, policy or law claimed to be illegal or unconstitutional and how they are personally affected. The only effect on rights relied on by the Petitioner is the most general effect and is not meaningfully personal.

I do not think the Petitioner has shown there is a compelling regional interest in resolving the request. The term of Koopa103, if it was a term, has ended with the conclusion of the recent election and swearing of the oath of office by the new Speaker. The period of time in respect of which the validity of actions may be impugned is therefore very short and the number of those actions, if there are any, very few. Any challenge to those actions can and should be brought by individuals affected by them, there is not a compelling regional interest in resolving the issues raised in the abstract given the relatively minor effect of any invalidity on the overall constitutional order.
 
Top