The Status Change Consequences Act [S.C.C.A.]

[Vivanco]

After the last mistake of the Court regarding Lord Dominator's "re-appointment" (Without effect) as Bar Commissioner, I've found a small "what if" that the law does not reflect regarding the status of a Bar Commisioner if the origin status changes.
As the law stands, the origin from the three Bar Commissioners are as follows:

• Direct Appointment by the Delegate
  
  • Must be a citizen.
  • Not an elected government official
• Appointment by the Court and Confirmation by the RA
  
  • Must be a citizen
  • Not an elected government official
• Direct Appointment between members of the Court.
  
  • Must be a Justice of the Court

All of them have their own requirements to meet in order to be part of the Bar Commission. However, it isn't clear what happens if such a status changes when they're already on the Bar Commission. Would they lose their place as well?
To this, I have decided to clear it up in the legislative way instead of waiting for it to happen and have a R4R on this issue.

Since the term limits are different from being a member of the Court to being a member of the Bar Commission, it would seem inviable and not efficient to have the Court Member lose several months of their term in the case of them not being re-elected.
So, as an idea for this act and reform, these requirements and criteria should be clarified as "entering requirements", by which they have to meet in order to become a bar commissioner, and to not have them lose said status once said prior requirement is lost.

The Legal Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.3 shall be amended as follows:

Section 3.3: Regional Bar of The North Pacific
11. All prosecutors in criminal trials must be members of the regional bar.
12. Any citizen who is not currently serving a judicially-imposed sentence may apply for admission to the regional bar. Any citizen who is given a judicially-imposed sentence while a member of the regional bar will have their admission to the regional bar revoked.
13. The regional bar will be governed by the Bar Commission, which consists of three citizens, one a Justice of the Court elected by a majority of the Court, one appointed by the Delegate, and one appointed by the Court and confirmed by a majority of the Regional Assembly. The citizens appointed by the Delegate and the Court may not be elected government officials, but will otherwise be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment to the Bar Commission.
14. Such requirements shall be only applied in regards of their entry as Bar Commissioners. In the case of loss of said status, the Bar Commissioners shall hold to their offices until the end of their legally scheduled term unless they resign or they are recalled.
15. The term of a Bar Commissioner will be six months, beginning on the day they take the Oath of Office. The Delegate and the Court do not have the power to remove Bar Commissioners.
16. Applicants to the regional bar must be evaluated by the Bar Commission for acceptability and must demonstrate adequate and reasonable knowledge of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code of The North Pacific, and prior judicial rulings on requests for review.
17. A standard procedure for passing the bar evaluation, and for managing membership of the bar, will be established by majority agreement of the Bar Commission.

 

[Pallaith]

This is not a problem, it is in fact the design of the law. To quote myself from the debate on the Regional Bar and Standing Act:

For the term thing, there’s an implicit assumption that a re-elected Justice will continue to be a bar commissioner for however much time is left in their term. I agree that in practice you could theoretically see a string of one-term justices who keep getting chosen to serve on the commission. In practice, that third member may not be there for 6 months. I don’t think that’s necessarily an issue though - the point of that aspect of the system is that one member is a member of the Court.

If a Justice is not re-elected, or ceases serving on the Court, the Justice should not continue to serve on the Bar Commission as the Court's member on the commission. It is the Court's member of the committee after all. This would change the intent of the commission's setup, for the sake of allowing someone two months of service for an arbitrary 6 month term of service. Having a justice re-elected means that halfway into that term, they have to be re-appointed, which gives the Court an opportunity to choose someone else if they so desire. I consider that to be an alright thing.

While my wording would be different, I do recognize that what you have drafted would accomplish your goal and guarantee that the Justice appointed to the commission would be guaranteed completion of their term. I just disagree that that is necessary or even desirable.

 

[Vivanco]

If a Justice is not re-elected, or ceases serving on the Court, the Justice should not continue to serve on the Bar Commission as the Court's member on the commission. It is the Court's member of the committee after all. This would change the intent of the commission's setup, for the sake of allowing someone two months of service for an arbitrary 6 month term of service. Having a justice re-elected means that halfway into that term, they have to be re-appointed, which gives the Court an opportunity to choose someone else if they so desire. I consider that to be an alright thing.

While my wording would be different, I do recognize that what you have drafted would accomplish your goal and guarantee that the Justice appointed to the commission would be guaranteed completion of their term. I just disagree that that is necessary or even desirable.

The thing is, it would be more efficient in that case, in the case of the Court's member's term to be adjusted to the Court's term, instead of the regular 6 months. And it could cause some commotion as the "outed" Court Justice could see this as the Court taking them out, which would contradict Section 3.3.14 ( or 15 if said reform came to effect)
The lack of wording on the procedure in the law, while the intent is there, does fall flat, as the intent of the law and the law per se are diferent from the mere wording, and in a court trial, what holds is not the intention behind but what the law is.
So, either we secure the terms as separate offices as per the terms seem to imply, or we have to add the modification and clarification regarding Court members within the Bar Commission.

 

[Pallaith]

I actually find the law to be fairly clear. When it says one of the members is a Justice, but this Justice ends up leaving the Court, how can they still serve as a commissioner? This goes beyond intent - the law states one member is a Court Justice, the letter of the law clearly has that provision. If they’re not a Justice, they can’t be a commissioner even if their term wasn’t finished. If anyone else in any other office suddenly ceased to qualify for the office, but hadn’t finished their term, we wouldn’t feel the need to redefine term length or other language for them. So why do it here?

Your hypothetical doesn’t work either. A Justice can’t feel that they were taken out by the Court if they resigned themselves or declined to run for another term, or were simply not re-elected to the Court. The Court is legally prohibited from removing commissioners. And if the commissioner makes it to the 6 month mark and is not re-appointed, while they can see that as the Court choosing to take them off, that’s also the expiration of their term - they weren’t guaranteed more.

I’ll grant you that this scenario is unique in our law (or at least, from a quick browse and running positions off the top of my head, I can’t think of another similar case), but what isn’t unique is the principles we’re applying to it. Some roles have prerequisites. If you don’t meet all of them, then you don’t qualify for the role. You can make an argument that you don’t like the Justice’s position on the bar commission being a bit easier to lose than the other two, but you can’t argue that status quo is somehow unclear.

 

[Comfed]

We should just get rid of the Bar Commission altogether. It's an over-the-top way of trying to ensure separation of powers, especially for an institution with virtually no actual power (the Bar). The Court can manage it just fine.

 

[Pallaith]

We should just get rid of the Bar Commission altogether. It's an over-the-top way of trying to ensure separation of powers, especially for an institution with virtually no actual power (the Bar). The Court can manage it just fine.

Over the top? If you want to go that route, most of the entire judicial setup, especially the criminal court process, is over the top. Judicial cosplay and lawyer dress up in NS as a whole is over the top. I don’t see why fine tuning an aspect that we decided we liked and wanted to utilize is beyond the pale, but the underlying concept of this whole judicial system is just fine.

The goal was to create skilled litigants (or at least, make it more likely they would be) and establish a standard for practicing law in TNP. The bill adopted a method identical to the EC - and don’t worry, I have heard people make the exact same critique against the EC that you’re making against the BC. TNP however favors dedicated bodies to these projects without piling it on the plate of elected officials, and allowing the people more of a say in the process. That’s democracy I guess. More things for people to do, in a political simulator game where we like to do them. What’s the harm?

 

[Comfed]

The goal was to create skilled litigants (or at least, make it more likely they would be) and establish a standard for practicing law in TNP. The bill adopted a method identical to the EC - and don’t worry, I have heard people make the exact same critique against the EC that you’re making against the BC. TNP however favors dedicated bodies to these projects without piling it on the plate of elected officials, and allowing the people more of a say in the process. That’s democracy I guess. More things for people to do, in a political simulator game where we like to do them. What’s the harm?

The Bar Commission and the Elections Commission are not the same. First of all, the method for appointing members of the EC is far more simple - they are all nominated by the Delegate and confirmed by the RA, as opposed to the Bar Commission whose members are all appointed via different processes and who all have slightly different qualifications. Also, the EC has a far more important role in our region, which is to ensure the integrity of elections. The Bar Commission's only job is to supervise a separate body. Occasionally, they have to make a decision on whether or not to admit someone, or who to make Court Examiner. Creating excessive complexity just for its own sake is not a good thing, and "What's the harm?" is not a good standard when creating new institutions of government.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

I broadly second Pallaith's comments, but I do wish to point out two further issues in the proposal, one in principle and one in practise.
Principle first. Both the non-judicial Bar members cannot hold elected office, but making the requirements for appointment only the entry requirements would mean they could subsequently seek elected office.
Practically, the specific wording of the proposed amendment means that citizenship is also just an entry requirement. In the event of losing citizenship, a Bar Commissioner should probably not keep their post until the end of the term.

 

[Comfed]

Practically, the specific wording of the proposed amendment means that citizenship is also just an entry requirement. In the event of losing citizenship, a Bar Commissioner should probably not keep their post until the end of the term.

The Constitution already requires that all government officials be citizens.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

The Constitution already requires that all government officials be citizens.

Does that change that the wording here doesn't require a Bar Commissioner to remain a citizen? If a later issue arises and someone submits a R4R I'm pretty sure I know the outcome, but why not preempt that by a better wording during the drafting phase?