[Shelved] Constitutional Amendment legal clerk establishment

Article 4. The Court

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.
3. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
4. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
6. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months.
7. The Justices may appoint legal clerks to assist them with their duties and to serve as a student to learn the legal process of The North Pacific. The legal clerks cannot hear cases unless appointed as a temporary hearing officer. Appointment of may be regulated by law and the rules of the Court.

Changes are in yellow.

I believe this change is vital because it gives citizens the opportunity to learn how to lead the courts. But more importantly we want to develop citizens for a better tomorrow.

There is nothing in the law to prevent Justices from appointing law clerks to assist them. A constitutional amendment is not necessary.

Pretty sure this is an RA thread. Moved.

Gorundu:

There is nothing in the law to prevent Justices from appointing law clerks to assist them. A constitutional amendment is not necessary.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you if it wasn’t mentioned in the Regional Assembly section that the Speaker can appoint deputies. I think this is a good thing to have here in the court section. Development of future justices isn’t a bad idea. When writing it, I felt this was the best area for this amendment. This is a preliminary step we can take to improve our Justice system. I’ve read some of the conversations of other members, and I think it’s a good opportunity for us at least consider this amendment for starters. I have other ideas like a bar exam, public defenders and such. But I think this amendment is needed for legal purposes.

I envision them more as Legal Clerks who will be able to learn from the Justices, get the priority of being appointed temporary hearing officers when needed, and answer legal questions

If the Justices believe that hiring law clerks is a good idea, then they would have already done so. Passing something like this is not going to suddenly make law clerks useful.

Another issue with this amendment is that it will solidify law clerks as a Government Official position, which then subjects it to the single-branch requirement in the Constitution. This would greatly limit the actual number of people eligible for the position, as most people would find other government positions more desirable if they had to make a choice between law clerk and something else.

A law clerk appointed by the justices even without this amendment would still be a government official and subject to the single-branch requirement, since they've been appointed by a constitutionally mandated elected official. Now, what Tree could do instead is write a bill to provide an exception for that, as per Article 6, Clause 13. "No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law."

Sil Dorsett:

A law clerk appointed by the justices even without this amendment would still be a government official and subject to the single-branch requirement, since they've been appointed by a constitutionally mandated elected official. Now, what Tree could do instead is write a bill to provide an exception for that, as per Article 6, Clause 13. "No person may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law."

Click to expand...

Law clerks could potentially work the same way as the Executive Staff currently does, or as the Speaker’s staff used to, via application and acceptance instead of appointment. This law would eliminate that possibility.

Tree of Wisdom:

7. The Justices may appoint legal clerks to assist them with their duties and to serve as a student to learn the legal process of The North Pacific. The legal clerks cannot hear cases unless appointed as a temporary hearing officer. Appointment of may be regulated by law and the rules of the Court.

Click to expand...

Please explain why this ought to be in the Constitution and not in the Legal Code, if there is a reason

I'm not convinced why having a legal clerk would be useful. Against for now

I'm quite supportive of this idea. For for now.