[Chambers] Request for Review: Deputy Speakers

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Saintpeter has filed a request for review concerning whether or not Deputy Speakers are able to disobey unlawful instructions given to them by the Speaker.

 

[Oracle]

I believe that the petitioner has standing and that the Speaker would be the respondent.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have accepted this request. I have identified and notified the Speaker as respondent and set the period for briefs at one day.

We will need to find a further THO for this matter.

Spoiler: Discord Logs (GMT (UTC)) (Court Channel)

November 3, 2020

[4:38 PM] Goddess of Death: @Court seems there is a new R4R - https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9193210/
The North Pacific
[R4R] The power of the Speaker to require Deputy Speakers to break ...
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
November 2, 2020, the Speaker noted the following:

Just a note - the Speakers Office will not be processing Wonderess's citizenship application. It will be left to...
[4:46 PM] Consul Vivanco: Let's check this out.
[4:57 PM] Zyvet: Very interesting.
[5:00 PM] Zyvet: Preliminary point, this relates to the eligibility of a voter in the coming election. I haven’t though through the full implications as yet, but I do want to flag that point as it may raise questions of a conflict of interest. It may be that it doesn’t, but it is a point to be alive to.
[5:09 PM] Goddess of Death: Since I am no longer running, I can handle this R4R
[5:10 PM] Zyvet: On standing, my sense is that the petitioner has standing.

The action has a personal effect to them (and the limited class of other Deputy Speakers) and appears to me to be sufficient for standing, in that they are (arguably) exposed to criminal liability, if it is the case that they can disobey an unlawful direction but fail to do so. I think the question of whether the Speaker’s direction here is unlawful is out of scope for the review, because it isn’t actually asked by the petitioner and also because I think standing in that scenario would be more dubious (the petitioner would effectively be asserting the right of the person denied), though I do note that the Court has accepted a similar sort of review in relation to Trieze Dreizehn (requested by me as Speaker)
[5:12 PM] Goddess of Death: I think that the petitioner has standing.
[5:32 PM] Zyvet: Where are you in relation whether a conflict of interest arises?

COI is "when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a vested interest in a matter before the Court, or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner"

There is a case concerning judicial recusals. That involved a failure by Funk to recuse, he had been a candidate in the judicial election where another candidate's name had been left of the ballot, the r4r being whether leaving the name off invalidated the vote.

I am not sure whether a conflict necessarily arises here, in that no candidate has any particular reason to think that Wonderess will or will not vote for them, so it may be there isn't a vested interest (as there isn't a known person gain from deciding one way or the other)
[5:34 PM] Zyvet: That said, however, it could impact the election (although one would think it unlikely that it could be decided by Wonderess' vote), which could raise a question as to whether a ruling would be seen to be fair, which I think does come into it
[5:38 PM] Zyvet: Also, from a case management perspective, would I be right in presuming that everyone would agree that:
1. The Speaker is the proper respondent to the case;
[5:38 PM] Zyvet: 2. The period for briefs should be curtailed to nothing or a bare minimum such as one day
[5:39 PM] Zyvet: (In re: COIs I am going to ask if there is any application for recusal)
[6:00 PM] Zyvet: @Court
[6:01 PM] Zyvet: (also peter has indicated he is not seeking recusals, if that is of assistance)
[6:01 PM] Goddess of Death: I think in terms of a recusal for COI would be any justice or hearing officer running in the election.
[6:01 PM] Consul Vivanco: I'm currently running for election, so I don't know if I should tackle it
[6:04 PM]Zyvet: If you're minded to recuse @Consul Vivanco that is fine, may be a struggle to find a THO (given the number of candidates and the size of the executive and legislative branches), but I am sure it can be done. I do not think that I am running anyway
[6:26 PM] Zyvet: @Consul Vivanco I would like an indication on whether you are recusing though, as I think this is clearly a time sensitive issue

[...]

[7:00 PM] Goddess of Death: So in regards to the R4R, I believe the petitioner has standing, MJ would be the respondent
[7:07 PM] Consul Vivanco:

@Consul Vivanco I would like an indication on whether you are recusing though, as I think this is clearly a time sensitive issue

@Zyvet On the R4R I will recuse myself.
[7:08 PM] Zyvet: OK. Oracle and I will move continued discussion of that to a DM.
[7:08 PM] Zyvet: Obviously, you shouldn't look at the Chambers thread.
[7:08 PM] Consul Vivanco: Will do

Spoiler: Discord Logs (GMT (UTC)) (Zyvetskistaahn and Oracle DM)

November 3, 2020

[7:10 PM] Zyvet: Ok, I am minded to accept the request. The one point on which I have some issue is whether the petitioners are truly alleging that an action/policy is illegal or unconstitutional, given that they way they are framing the question is, in essence, "if the action/policy is illegal, can we disobey it", which is a somewhat hypothetical question
[7:13 PM] Zyvet: Which runs into some issue with the decision on Court Review of RA Proposals
[7:14 PM] Zyvet: But even so, I think that it can be accepted, particularly given its urgency, and, ultimately, if we decide that the Court lacks jurisdiction because of that, that can be dealt with in the final decision, as the Court is not bound by the decision of a single one of us to accept the review

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Spoiler

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by saintpeter on behalf of himself and Lady Raven Wing on the Power of the Speaker to Direct Deputy Speakers
Opinion drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Oracle and Goyanes​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by saintpeter.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by Dreadton, saintpeter, Lady Raven Wing, and Praetor.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

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.

[...]

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

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.

25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of Rules of the Regional Assembly:

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Standing and the Definition of Affected Party:

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Court Review of RA Proposals:

Furthermore, a proposal before the RA cannot be considered a law or a government policy until it is enacted. The Court is a reactive body, and both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution Article 5, Clause 1 preclude the Court from ruling on something that hasn't actually happened yet, such as potential violation of rights that might be done if a proposal becomes a law.

This decision does not apply solely to requests to review proposals of the Regional Assembly. More broadly, the Court finds that justices are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on the Speaker's Power to Schedule Votes:

The particular action at issue here was taken by a Deputy Speaker, but that does not have any bearing on the principles to be applied. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly allow the Deputy Speaker to be delegated any power or responsibility of the Speaker, with the laws that apply to the Speaker applying in a like manner to their Deputies.

The Court opines the following:

Standing

This is a request for review by saintpeter and Lady Raven Wing. They are both Deputy Speakers. They have been directed by the Speaker not to take an action, namely not to accept an application for citizenship by a resident, Wonderess.

They do not, in terms, contend that that direction is unlawful. Rather, the question their review seeks to answer can be put in this way: if that direction, or another, by the Speaker is unlawful, can they disobey it.

The Court is satisfied that the petitioners do have standing to bring this request for review. Both are personally affected by a government action or policy, namely the Speaker's direction that they do not accept an application for citizenship (whether the direction is better understood as an action or a policy does not make a difference for the purposes of this review). They do reasonably perceive their rights to be infringed, as the Speaker's direction exposes them to a risk of criminal liability if the direction is unlawful (though their liability would not turn solely on that issue), and that effect on their rights is clearly connected to the direction.

Jurisdiction

The Court was concerned, on considering the review, that the issue it was being asked to consider may be without the Court's jurisdiction. The Court in its decision on Court Review of RA Proposals held that the Court's review power is limited to reviewing extant laws, policies or actions. The Court is incapable of considering a review of a hypothetical future action.

The framing of this request for review, as asking whether it would be lawful for a Deputy Speaker to disobey a direction of the Speaker, appeared to the Court to risk straying into answering a hypothetical. However, the Court considers that, more properly, this request can be understood as asking whether it is lawful for the Speaker to direct a Deputy Speaker not to take a specific action within a class of actions that a Deputy Speaker is empowered to take. That question is within the scope of the Court's authority to answer.

The Court does not need to answer, and is not asked by the request to answer, the question of whether the Speaker's underlying decision not to accept the application for citizenship made by Wonderess is lawful. Moreover, it is not apparent at this time that the petitioners would have standing to challenge that decision and answering that question could prejudice the Speaker's defence in criminal proceedings, which is of particular concern given a request for indictment has in fact been filed. The Court will, therefore, not answer that question.

The Role of the Deputy Speaker

The Constitution empowers the Speaker to appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. The Constitution allows the role of Deputy Speaker to be regulated by both law and the Regional Assembly's rules.

No particular provision in relation to Deputy Speakers has been made by law, however the Regional Assembly has exercised its power to regulate them through its Rules. The Rules effectively mirror the Constitution and allow the Speaker to delegate any power or duty to a Deputy Speaker; while the Rules cannot determine the meaning of the Constitution, which is superior law, the Court does find that the Rules correctly state the position under the Constitution, namely that Deputy Speakers exercise the delegated power of the Speaker. They further provide that such a delegation does not relieve the Speaker of their powers or duties and that, when acting under a delegation, the Deputy Speaker is subject to the same constraints as the Speaker.

The conclusion that flows from this is that the Speaker may determine the powers and duties of a Deputy Speaker. Neither the Constitution nor the Rules convey that the Speaker must delegate all of their powers and duties to a Deputy Speaker. Were the position that the Speaker may only delegate the whole of their powers and duties, the far more obvious framing of the provisions would simply be "A Deputy Speaker will have the same powers and duties as the Speaker". The ability to delegate implies the ability to choose which powers to delegate. That position is also consistent with other government officials: the Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and that is understood to allow the Delegate to constrain the powers of executive officers to certain tasks or areas.

Nature of Delegation

This raises a question as to the nature of the delegation. Does it have to be by reference to a general power or duty (for instance, the power to administer votes in the Regional Assembly) or can it be more specific (the power to administer a given vote)?

The Court notes, again, that the Constitution and the Rules do not convey that either general or specific delegations are impermissible. However, it does not follow from this that there is no limit, general limits on government power may impose one. It has been argued that a specific non-delegation by the Speaker, in relation to a power that the Speaker generally allows a Deputy Speaker to exercise, could infringe on the right to equal protection. If that were so, the argument goes, specific non-delegation may be unlawful.

However, the Court considers that similar arguments could properly be made for general non-delegations. If the Speaker did not delegate the power to remove citizenship and then failed to exercise that power or to do so unequally, that could infringe the right equal protection or breach the Speaker's duty to promptly remove citizens, but it does not follow that such failures by the Speaker mean that the Court can find a Deputy Speaker gains the Speaker's power.

In truth, where the Speaker by action or omission violates a nation's rights, it is the action or omission itself which violates them, not any lack of delegation. The nation does not have any right to have a Deputy Speaker to undertake or refrain from any action, except to the extent that the Deputy Speaker has been delegated the Speaker's power to do so. That this is so follows from the provision of the Rules that "Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker".

Moreover, there are circumstances where specific delegation or non-delegation is actively desirable. A Speaker may wish to train a Deputy Speaker and, therefore, allow them to process a particular citizenship application or administer a particular vote, there is no good reason to say that, in doing so, the Speaker thereby allows the Deputy Speaker to admit citizens in general or administer any vote. Conversely, a Speaker may consider that a Deputy Speaker could be perceived as having an interest in a particular proposal before the Regional Assembly and, therefore, remove from them the power to make decisions about it, it is unclear why that should be unlawful.

The Court, therefore, concludes that the Speaker may make either general or specific delegations. Neither is without the scope of the wording of the Constitution or the Rules, nor can a failure to delegate itself infringe on a nation's rights so as to implicitly limit that scope, it is the substantive action or omission of the Speaker that does so.

The Direction in this Case

In this case, the Speaker appears to have given to his Deputy Speakers the power and duty, in general, of admitting citizens. Naturally, when doing so Deputy Speakers are bound to obey the law, as the Speaker is. However, he has also directed them not to process the specific application of Wonderess and he has undertaken not do so himself.

The wording of the direction, that Deputy Speakers must "act in accordance with the statement [the Speaker] made saying the Office will not be processing Wonderess' application" is one which clearly varies the general delegation to exclude the processing of Wonderess' application. The Court is satisfied that, properly understood, that is the effect of the direction and that, as a result, the Deputy Speakers have no power or duty to process Wonderess' application.

The Court finds, therefore, that there is no need for the Deputy Speakers to disobey the Speaker's direction in order to comply with their legal obligations, because they are not, in relation to that application, exercising the powers and duties of the Speaker and so are not within the scope of rule 2, section 3 of the Rules and have no obligation to process the application. Indeed, if the Deputy Speakers sought to process the application, they would not be exercising the Speaker's power in doing so and their actions would be of no effect.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the nature of the power of Deputy Speakers is that it is delegated to them by the Speaker. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly do not place limits on the nature of that delegation. While an act or omission of the Speaker can, plainly, infringe on a nation's rights or violate their duty to obey the law, it does not follow that doing so has any effect on the Speaker's decision to delegate. There are also strong reasons to think that specific delegation or non-delegation would be permissible. The Court, therefore, finds that the Speaker may delegate their power either specifically or generally and, if they have delegated it generally, may remove specific matters from the scope of delegation.

The Court is satisfied that the Speaker has, in this case, not delegated to his Deputy Speakers the power to process Wonderess' application. The Deputy Speakers do not, therefore, have any power or duty to do so. The Court therefore concludes that it is not contrary to their legal obligations not to act, as their obligations as Deputy Speakers arise only where they have a power and duty to act.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Spoiler

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by saintpeter on behalf of himself and Lady Raven Wing on the Power of the Speaker to Direct Deputy Speakers
Opinion drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Oracle and Goyanes​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by saintpeter.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by Dreadton, saintpeter, Lady Raven Wing, and Praetor.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

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.

[...]

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

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.

25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of Rules of the Regional Assembly:

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Standing and the Definition of Affected Party:

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Court Review of RA Proposals:

Furthermore, a proposal before the RA cannot be considered a law or a government policy until it is enacted. The Court is a reactive body, and both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution Article 5, Clause 1 preclude the Court from ruling on something that hasn't actually happened yet, such as potential violation of rights that might be done if a proposal becomes a law.

This decision does not apply solely to requests to review proposals of the Regional Assembly. More broadly, the Court finds that justices are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on the Speaker's Power to Schedule Votes:

The particular action at issue here was taken by a Deputy Speaker, but that does not have any bearing on the principles to be applied. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly allow the Deputy Speaker to be delegated any power or responsibility of the Speaker, with the laws that apply to the Speaker applying in a like manner to their Deputies.

The Court opines the following:

Standing

This is a request for review by saintpeter and Lady Raven Wing. They are both Deputy Speakers. They have been directed by the Speaker not to take an action, namely not to process an application for citizenship by a resident, Wonderess.

They do not, in terms, contend that that direction is unlawful. Rather, the question their review seeks to answer can be put in this way: if that direction, or another, by the Speaker is unlawful, can they disobey it.

The Court is satisfied that the petitioners do have standing to bring this request for review. Both are personally affected by a government action or policy, namely the Speaker's direction that they do not accept an application for citizenship (whether the direction is better understood as an action or a policy does not make a difference for the purposes of this review). They do reasonably perceive their rights to be infringed, as the Speaker's direction exposes them to a risk of criminal liability if the direction is unlawful (though their liability would not turn solely on that issue), and that effect on their rights is clearly connected to the direction.

Jurisdiction

The Court was concerned, on considering the review, that the issue it was being asked to consider may be without the Court's jurisdiction. The Court in its decision on Court Review of RA Proposals held that the Court's review power is limited to reviewing extant laws, policies or actions. The Court is incapable of considering a review of a hypothetical future action.

The framing of this request for review, as asking whether it would be lawful for a Deputy Speaker to disobey a direction of the Speaker, appeared to the Court to risk straying into answering a hypothetical by asking whether a future action by a Deputy Speaker could be lawful. However, the Court considers that, more properly, this request can be understood as asking whether it is lawful for the Speaker to direct a Deputy Speaker not to take a specific action within a class of actions that a Deputy Speaker is empowered to take. That question is within the scope of the Court's authority to answer.

The Court does not need to answer, and is not asked by the request to answer, the question of whether the Speaker's underlying decision not to accept the application for citizenship made by Wonderess is lawful. Moreover, it is not apparent at this time that the petitioners would have standing to challenge that decision and answering that question could prejudice the Speaker's defence in criminal proceedings, which is of particular concern given a request for indictment has in fact been filed. The Court will, therefore, not answer that question.

The Role of the Deputy Speaker

The Constitution empowers the Speaker to appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. The Constitution allows the role of Deputy Speaker to be regulated by both law and the Regional Assembly's rules.

No particular provision in relation to Deputy Speakers has been made by law, however, the Regional Assembly has exercised its power to regulate them through its Rules. The Rules effectively mirror the Constitution and allow the Speaker to delegate any power or duty to a Deputy Speaker; while the Rules cannot determine the meaning of the Constitution, which is superior law, the Court does find that the Rules correctly state the position under the Constitution, namely that Deputy Speakers exercise the delegated power of the Speaker. They further provide that such a delegation does not relieve the Speaker of their powers or duties and that, when acting under a delegation, the Deputy Speaker is subject to the same constraints as the Speaker.

The conclusion that flows from this is that the Speaker may determine the powers and duties of a Deputy Speaker. Neither the Constitution nor the Rules convey that the Speaker must delegate all of their powers and duties to a Deputy Speaker. Were the position that the Speaker may only delegate the whole of their powers and duties, the far more obvious framing of the provisions would simply be "A Deputy Speaker will have the same powers and duties as the Speaker". The ability to delegate implies the ability to choose which powers to delegate. That position is also consistent with other government officials: the Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and that is understood to allow the Delegate to constrain the powers of executive officers to certain tasks or areas.

Nature of Delegation

This raises a question as to the nature of the delegation. Does it have to be by reference to a general power or duty (for instance, the power to administer votes in the Regional Assembly) or can it be more specific (the power to administer a given vote)?

The Court notes, again, that the Constitution and the Rules do not convey that either general or specific delegations are impermissible. However, it does not follow from this that there is no limit: general limits on government power may impose one. It has been argued that a specific non-delegation by the Speaker, in relation to a power that the Speaker generally allows a Deputy Speaker to exercise, could infringe on the right to equal protection. If that were so, the argument goes, specific non-delegation may be unlawful.

However, the Court considers that similar arguments could properly be made for general non-delegations. If the Speaker did not delegate the power to remove citizenship and then failed to exercise that power or chose to do so unequally, that could infringe the right equal protection or breach the Speaker's duty to promptly remove citizens, but it does not follow that such failures by the Speaker mean that the Court can find a Deputy Speaker gains the Speaker's power.

In truth, where the Speaker by action or omission violates a nation's rights, it is the action or omission itself which violates them, not any lack of delegation. The nation does not have any right to have a Deputy Speaker to undertake or refrain from any action, except to the extent that the Deputy Speaker has been delegated the Speaker's power to do so. That this is so follows from the provision of the Rules that "Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker". The answer for such a nation is to challenge the substantive action or omission by the Speaker, not the lack of delegation nor any inaction by the Deputy Speaker.

Moreover, there are circumstances where specific delegation or non-delegation is actively desirable. A Speaker may wish to train a Deputy Speaker and, therefore, allow them to process a particular citizenship application or administer a particular vote, there is no good reason to say that, in doing so, the Speaker thereby allows the Deputy Speaker to admit citizens in general or administer any vote. Conversely, a Speaker may consider that a Deputy Speaker could be perceived as having an interest in a particular proposal before the Regional Assembly and, therefore, remove from them the power to make decisions about it, it is unclear why that should be unlawful or should mean the Deputy Speaker cannot make decision on unrelated proposals.

The Court, therefore, concludes that the Speaker may make either general or specific delegations. Neither is without the scope of the wording of the Constitution or the Rules, nor can a failure to delegate itself infringe on a nation's rights so as to implicitly limit that scope, it is the substantive action or omission of the Speaker that does so. A non-delegation is therefore not unlawful merely because of how the Speaker carries out the substantive, non-delegated duties.

The Direction in this Case

In this case, the Speaker appears to have given to his Deputy Speakers the power and duty, in general, of admitting citizens. Naturally, when doing so Deputy Speakers are bound to obey the law, as the Speaker is. However, he has also directed them not to process the specific application of Wonderess and he has undertaken not do so himself.

The wording of the direction, that Deputy Speakers must "act in accordance with the statement [the Speaker] made saying the Office will not be processing Wonderess' application" is one which clearly varies the general delegation to exclude the processing of Wonderess' application. The Court is satisfied that, properly understood, that is the effect of the direction and that, as a result, the Deputy Speakers have no power or duty to process Wonderess' application.

The Court finds, therefore, that there is no need for the Deputy Speakers to disobey the Speaker's direction in order to comply with their legal obligations, because they are not, in relation to that application, exercising the powers and duties of the Speaker and so are not within the scope of rule 2, section 3 of the Rules and have no obligation to process the application. Indeed, if the Deputy Speakers sought to process the application, they would not be exercising the Speaker's power in doing so and their actions would be of no effect.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the nature of the power of Deputy Speakers is that it is delegated to them by the Speaker. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly do not place express limits on the nature of that delegation. While an act or omission of the Speaker can, plainly, infringe on a nation's rights or violate their duty to obey the law, it does not follow that doing so has any effect on the Speaker's decision to delegate. There are also strong reasons to think that specific delegation or non-delegation would be permissible. The Court, therefore, finds that the Speaker may delegate their power either specifically or generally and, if they have delegated it generally, may remove specific matters from the scope of delegation.

The Court is satisfied that the Speaker has, in this case, not delegated to his Deputy Speakers the power to process Wonderess' application. That non-delegation is not unlawful. The Deputy Speakers do not, therefore, have any power or duty to process the application. The Court therefore concludes that it is not contrary to their legal obligations not to act, as their obligations as Deputy Speakers arise only where they have a power and duty to act.

Spoiler: Markup

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by saintpeter on behalf of himself and Lady Raven Wing on the Power of the Speaker to Direct Deputy Speakers
Opinion drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by Oracle and Goyanes​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by saintpeter.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by Dreadton, saintpeter, Lady Raven Wing, and Praetor.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

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.

[...]

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

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.

25. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of Rules of the Regional Assembly:

2. Unless otherwise specified by law, the Speaker may delegate any of their powers and duties to the Deputy Speaker. Delegation under this section does not relieve the Speaker of any of their powers and duties. Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Standing and the Definition of Affected Party:

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.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on Court Review of RA Proposals:

Furthermore, a proposal before the RA cannot be considered a law or a government policy until it is enacted. The Court is a reactive body, and both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution Article 5, Clause 1 preclude the Court from ruling on something that hasn't actually happened yet, such as potential violation of rights that might be done if a proposal becomes a law.

This decision does not apply solely to requests to review proposals of the Regional Assembly. More broadly, the Court finds that justices are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its ruling on the Speaker's Power to Schedule Votes:

The particular action at issue here was taken by a Deputy Speaker, but that does not have any bearing on the principles to be applied. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly allow the Deputy Speaker to be delegated any power or responsibility of the Speaker, with the laws that apply to the Speaker applying in a like manner to their Deputies.

The Court opines the following:

Standing

This is a request for review by saintpeter and Lady Raven Wing. They are both Deputy Speakers. They have been directed by the Speaker not to take an action, namely not to processaccept an application for citizenship by a resident, Wonderess.

They do not, in terms, contend that that direction is unlawful. Rather, the question their review seeks to answer can be put in this way: if that direction, or another, by the Speaker is unlawful, can they disobey it.

The Court is satisfied that the petitioners do have standing to bring this request for review. Both are personally affected by a government action or policy, namely the Speaker's direction that they do not accept an application for citizenship (whether the direction is better understood as an action or a policy does not make a difference for the purposes of this review). They do reasonably perceive their rights to be infringed, as the Speaker's direction exposes them to a risk of criminal liability if the direction is unlawful (though their liability would not turn solely on that issue), and that effect on their rights is clearly connected to the direction.

Jurisdiction

The Court was concerned, on considering the review, that the issue it was being asked to consider may be without the Court's jurisdiction. The Court in its decision on Court Review of RA Proposals held that the Court's review power is limited to reviewing extant laws, policies or actions. The Court is incapable of considering a review of a hypothetical future action.

The framing of this request for review, as asking whether it would be lawful for a Deputy Speaker to disobey a direction of the Speaker, appeared to the Court to risk straying into answering a hypothetical by asking whether a future action by a Deputy Speaker could be lawful. However, the Court considers that, more properly, this request can be understood as asking whether it is lawful for the Speaker to direct a Deputy Speaker not to take a specific action within a class of actions that a Deputy Speaker is empowered to take. That question is within the scope of the Court's authority to answer.

The Court does not need to answer, and is not asked by the request to answer, the question of whether the Speaker's underlying decision not to accept the application for citizenship made by Wonderess is lawful. Moreover, it is not apparent at this time that the petitioners would have standing to challenge that decision and answering that question could prejudice the Speaker's defence in criminal proceedings, which is of particular concern given a request for indictment has in fact been filed. The Court will, therefore, not answer that question.

The Role of the Deputy Speaker

The Constitution empowers the Speaker to appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. The Constitution allows the role of Deputy Speaker to be regulated by both law and the Regional Assembly's rules.

No particular provision in relation to Deputy Speakers has been made by law, however, the Regional Assembly has exercised its power to regulate them through its Rules. The Rules effectively mirror the Constitution and allow the Speaker to delegate any power or duty to a Deputy Speaker; while the Rules cannot determine the meaning of the Constitution, which is superior law, the Court does find that the Rules correctly state the position under the Constitution, namely that Deputy Speakers exercise the delegated power of the Speaker. They further provide that such a delegation does not relieve the Speaker of their powers or duties and that, when acting under a delegation, the Deputy Speaker is subject to the same constraints as the Speaker.

The conclusion that flows from this is that the Speaker may determine the powers and duties of a Deputy Speaker. Neither the Constitution nor the Rules convey that the Speaker must delegate all of their powers and duties to a Deputy Speaker. Were the position that the Speaker may only delegate the whole of their powers and duties, the far more obvious framing of the provisions would simply be "A Deputy Speaker will have the same powers and duties as the Speaker". The ability to delegate implies the ability to choose which powers to delegate. That position is also consistent with other government officials: the Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and that is understood to allow the Delegate to constrain the powers of executive officers to certain tasks or areas.

Nature of Delegation

This raises a question as to the nature of the delegation. Does it have to be by reference to a general power or duty (for instance, the power to administer votes in the Regional Assembly) or can it be more specific (the power to administer a given vote)?

The Court notes, again, that the Constitution and the Rules do not convey that either general or specific delegations are impermissible. However, it does not follow from this that there is no limit:, general limits on government power may impose one. It has been argued that a specific non-delegation by the Speaker, in relation to a power that the Speaker generally allows a Deputy Speaker to exercise, could infringe on the right to equal protection. If that were so, the argument goes, specific non-delegation may be unlawful.

However, the Court considers that similar arguments could properly be made for general non-delegations. If the Speaker did not delegate the power to remove citizenship and then failed to exercise that power or chose to do so unequally, that could infringe the right equal protection or breach the Speaker's duty to promptly remove citizens, but it does not follow that such failures by the Speaker mean that the Court can find a Deputy Speaker gains the Speaker's power.

In truth, where the Speaker by action or omission violates a nation's rights, it is the action or omission itself which violates them, not any lack of delegation. The nation does not have any right to have a Deputy Speaker to undertake or refrain from any action, except to the extent that the Deputy Speaker has been delegated the Speaker's power to do so. That this is so follows from the provision of the Rules that "Any provisions of law related to the powers and duties of the Speaker, when exercised by the Deputy Speaker under the provisions of this clause, shall apply to the Deputy Speaker". The answer for such a nation is to challenge the substantive action or omission by the Speaker, not the lack of delegation nor any inaction by the Deputy Speaker

Moreover, there are circumstances where specific delegation or non-delegation is actively desirable. A Speaker may wish to train a Deputy Speaker and, therefore, allow them to process a particular citizenship application or administer a particular vote, there is no good reason to say that, in doing so, the Speaker thereby allows the Deputy Speaker to admit citizens in general or administer any vote. Conversely, a Speaker may consider that a Deputy Speaker could be perceived as having an interest in a particular proposal before the Regional Assembly and, therefore, remove from them the power to make decisions about it, it is unclear why that should be unlawful or should mean the Deputy Speaker cannot make decision on unrelated proposals.

The Court, therefore, concludes that the Speaker may make either general or specific delegations. Neither is without the scope of the wording of the Constitution or the Rules, nor can a failure to delegate itself infringe on a nation's rights so as to implicitly limit that scope, it is the substantive action or omission of the Speaker that does so. A non-delegation is therefore not unlawful merely because of how the Speaker carries out the substantive, non-delegated duties.

The Direction in this Case

In this case, the Speaker appears to have given to his Deputy Speakers the power and duty, in general, of admitting citizens. Naturally, when doing so Deputy Speakers are bound to obey the law, as the Speaker is. However, he has also directed them not to process the specific application of Wonderess and he has undertaken not do so himself.

The wording of the direction, that Deputy Speakers must "act in accordance with the statement [the Speaker] made saying the Office will not be processing Wonderess' application" is one which clearly varies the general delegation to exclude the processing of Wonderess' application. The Court is satisfied that, properly understood, that is the effect of the direction and that, as a result, the Deputy Speakers have no power or duty to process Wonderess' application.

The Court finds, therefore, that there is no need for the Deputy Speakers to disobey the Speaker's direction in order to comply with their legal obligations, because they are not, in relation to that application, exercising the powers and duties of the Speaker and so are not within the scope of rule 2, section 3 of the Rules and have no obligation to process the application. Indeed, if the Deputy Speakers sought to process the application, they would not be exercising the Speaker's power in doing so and their actions would be of no effect.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the nature of the power of Deputy Speakers is that it is delegated to them by the Speaker. The Constitution and the Rules of the Regional Assembly do not place express limits on the nature of that delegation. While an act or omission of the Speaker can, plainly, infringe on a nation's rights or violate their duty to obey the law, it does not follow that doing so has any effect on the Speaker's decision to delegate. There are also strong reasons to think that specific delegation or non-delegation would be permissible. The Court, therefore, finds that the Speaker may delegate their power either specifically or generally and, if they have delegated it generally, may remove specific matters from the scope of delegation.

The Court is satisfied that the Speaker has, in this case, not delegated to his Deputy Speakers the power to process Wonderess' application. That non-delegation is not unlawful. The Deputy Speakers do not, therefore, have any power or duty to process the applicationdo so. The Court therefore concludes that it is not contrary to their legal obligations not to act, as their obligations as Deputy Speakers arise only where they have a power and duty to act.