1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Court ruling number 22 (2013), On the Minor Error Clause.
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?
Section 10, Article 2 of the Constitution. The Regional Assembly has ratified a new constitutional amendment that allows the Speaker’s Office to correct minor errors in law without requiring an RA vote and the Delegate’s signature, thus making the ruling contradictory to presently existing law.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R.
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.
Standing derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: “The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”
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 newly ratified amendment to the Constitution clarifies that the Speaker’s Office’s correction of minor errors is not considered to be a legal proposal that would require an RA vote and the Delegate’s signature to become law. As a result, the ruling’s underlying reasoning has been superseded, and it should be rendered defunct for the sake of legal clarity and consistency.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
Court ruling number 22 (2013), On the Minor Error Clause.
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?
Section 10, Article 2 of the Constitution. The Regional Assembly has ratified a new constitutional amendment that allows the Speaker’s Office to correct minor errors in law without requiring an RA vote and the Delegate’s signature, thus making the ruling contradictory to presently existing law.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R.
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.
Standing derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: “The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”
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 newly ratified amendment to the Constitution clarifies that the Speaker’s Office’s correction of minor errors is not considered to be a legal proposal that would require an RA vote and the Delegate’s signature to become law. As a result, the ruling’s underlying reasoning has been superseded, and it should be rendered defunct for the sake of legal clarity and consistency.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
