[R4R] The Limits of the VD’s Security Evaluation

[Lord Dominator]

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

I request that the Court determine the extent of the Vice Delegate‘s power vis-a-vis the security evaluation they are required to preform for every application for citizenship.

In the semi-recent past, the VD has failed applicants for such things as improperly separating their offices in separate regions several years prior (Andrew), couping Osiris and generally disruptive behavior in several regions (Cormac), prior bad behavior 8-9 years before the rejection (Abstain/Limi), along with others for their participation in coups (Biyah and Zenny). Of note, the first three of these rejections occurred after those individuals held citizenship in the intervening time of at least some of these crimes. Quite obviously, the security evaluation can be stretched to cover many things (the VD in Cormac’s initial rejection even notes that it may be a legal stretch).

Thus, I ask that the Court determine whether the present state of the law presents any actual restrictions upon the VD in their conducting of this check.

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?

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 7 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.

This is section 6.1.5 of the Legal Code as currently written, which is the relevant bit of the law on this subject (and indeed, the only specific piece that deals with the subject). I do not believe that any of the cases I have mentioned violate this section.

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

The Court has never to my knowledge dealt with the subject of this aspect of the Vice Delegate’s security evaluation.

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.

I have not been personally affected in any manner by the ambiguity in the VD’s security evaluation.

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.

The compelling regional interest in resolving my request is the legitimate ambiguity that presently exists about the limits of the VD’s security evaluation. At present, past VD’s have expressed that the evaluation is effectively unlimited in scope, while the current VD (Cretox) has expressed a more restricted view of its limits. This ambiguity harms the ability of the region to appropriately discuss the role of the Vice Delegate in the citizenship check (both in the present, and the general knowledge of what a given VD is being legally empowered to do upon election).

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

Yes, the discussion threads of the mentioned rejections:
Andrew: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189537/
Cormac: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190286/
Abstain/Limi: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7305445/
Biyah: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7309331/
Zenny: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7389040/

 

[Dreadton]

This request is currently under review.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Forgive me, but, does this mean that the court has accepted the request for review and is coming up with a decision already, or that the court is considering whether to accept or deny the request to begin with?

 

[Dreadton]

Forgive me, but, does this mean that the court has accepted the request for review and is coming up with a decision already, or that the court is considering whether to accept or deny the request to begin with?

Appolgies for not being clear, we are currently considering whether to accept or deny the request.

 

[Pallaith]

The request is denied. The petitioner lacks standing, does not identify a law, policy, or action that must be reviewed, and does not advance a compelling regional interest.

This request fails to establish standing as an affected party. In [R4R] On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party, the Court established that "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 petitioner did not establish how they are harmed or any rights that may be violated by the law in question.

The Court is granted the power to "review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions" (Constitution, Article 4). The petitioner asks that the Court review "the extent of the Vice Delegate‘s power vis-a-vis the security evaluation they are required to preform for every application for citizenship." In other words, the Court is asked to define the limits of the Vice Delegate's power without tying that into any action taken by the government or whether that portion of the law is itself constitutional. It is easily apparent that this request is not concerned with any of the things the Court is empowered to review.

The petitioner asserts there is a compelling regional interest, which is "the legitimate ambiguity that presently exists about the limits of the VD’s security evaluation" and notes that different Vice Delegates have interpreted the security check power in various ways, concluding that the alleged ambiguity "harms the ability of the region to appropriately discuss the role of the Vice Delegate in the citizenship check." The Court does not find this sufficiently compelling to ignore the issue of standing.

While the Court may accept an R4R if there is a compelling regional interest in answering the question, regardless of standing, we do not see a cause of action here that requires court intervention. The proposed ambiguity lacks evidence of an occurrence in which the Court can view the question. Without a violation of rights, clear conflicts of law, or how such an ambiguity causes a violation or conflict there is not a question for the Court to review. I would also note that the Court has rejected a previous R4R on the same grounds, in a scenario very similar in nature to this one, albeit with different hypotheticals in mind. I find much of its reasoning applies in this situation.

 

[Lord Dominator]

Understood, thank you for your time