[R4R] Regarding "On the Minor Error Clause"

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Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time.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 As a result, the ruling’s underlying reasoning has been superseded, and it should be rendered defunct for the sake of legal clarity and consistency.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.

The Court accepts this request for review, and I will serve as the Moderating Justice. The Court does not recognize a respondent.

At this time the Court will accept briefs from any interested party, until five days from this post.

The period for submitting briefs has passed. The court will now deliberate.

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

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

Article 2. The Regional Assembly:

5. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
10. The Speaker will correct typographical or formatting errors within the laws enacted or amended by the Regional Assembly, provided that such corrections do not alter the substantive meaning of the text. Any such corrections must be reported to the Regional Assembly. These corrections shall not be construed as proposals of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law.

Click to expand...

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate:

5. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
6. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
7. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
8. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.

Click to expand...

Article 4. The Court:

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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of prior rulings here, here, here and here.

The Court opines the following:

On Standing

The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On the Court’s Prior Ruling

The Court is asked to review the prior ruling regarding the preamble in the legal code which granted the Speaker the ability to correct minor errors. The Court ruled that such a law was unconstitutional and since then a new amendment to the Constitution has passed, granting the Speaker the ability to correct typographical or formatting errors, provided that such corrections do not alter the substantive meaning of the text.

It remains true that the power of amending laws lies with the Regional Assembly, that a majority vote is required to pass and the delegate has the ability to veto. The Court found the preamble unconstitutional because it treated the correction of minor errors as amendments to the legal text occurring without satisfying the constitutional requirement of approval by majority vote. While the Constitution has since been amended to permit the correction of typographical and formatting errors that do not alter the substantive meaning of the law, the prior provision was broader in language. Had the former provision remained in force today, or been re-enacted in its original form, it would still remain unconstitutional. The new provision however contains language differentiating certain edits of typographical or formatting errors from an amendment, while the old provisions failed to do so.

The prior ruling predates the Court’s ruling On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party and therefore contains no express analysis of standing. However the legal requirement that the petitioner had to be an affected party or for there to be a regional interest existed even at the time of the prior ruling. The absence of a written reasoning in older rulings shall not be taken as evidence that standing was lacking. In reviewing decisions issued before the Court adopted its modern standing framework, the Court will presume that the prior Court properly satisfied itself that standing existed unless the record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

On Minor Corrections in Legal Texts

The recent amendment clearly separates typographical and formatting edits from standard amendments of law, but it remains important that the substantial meaning of the law is not altered by such an edit as emphasized by the amendmet's text. Misspellings, the addition or removal of a negation, or incorrect grammar can cause a substantial change to the text and in those cases, a vote in the Regional Assembly remains required.

Holding:

The Court hereby affirms the ruling On the Minor Error Clause. The prior ruling remains valid precedent and is not rendered defunct by the subsequent constitutional amendment. The former Legal Code provision would remain unconstitutional today if re-enacted in its original form.