1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Court ruling number 10 (2012), On Applications to the Security Council.
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?
This ruling violates Article 6, Clause 12 of the Constitution,
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
In On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies, the Court overturned On the Vice Delegate's Voting Rights within the Security Council due to its lack of any legal or constitutional basis for the Court’s invention of the Vice Delegate’s voting rights in the Security Council. In a similar manner, this ruling imposes an automatic admission process for Security Council applicants ex nihilo, based on nothing except the Court’s opinion and belief.
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 a whole for your request to be decided now.
Much like its overturned precedents regarding the NPA and the Vice Delegate’s voting rights in the Security Council, this ruling is another problematic attempt by the Court to legislate from the bench, by creating binding rules and requirements for other government bodies without any legal or constitutional foundation. In particular, the Constitution then and now does not include any requirements for rejected applications to be automatically moved to the Regional Assembly for a vote—merely that the RA may confirm them by a two-thirds majority—but the Court nonetheless mandated such a procedure. In so doing, the Court encroached upon the Security Council’s constitutional prerogative in handling applications and the Regional Assembly’s ability to decide when and how it would vote to confirm rejected applicants, thereby violating the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution.
In the interests of sound law and an effective separation of powers, the Court should overturn the extraconstitutional mandates of this ruling.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
It is worth noting that Article 5 of the Constitution, specifically Sections 1, 2, and 3, has been amended by the Regional Assembly since the ruling. The language of the admission process to the SC has been modified from an approve-and-admit process to a nominate-and-appoint one, with a new section clarifying the duration of nominations in effect. The exemption carveout conferred by the RA has also been eliminated. These amendments, however, do not materially change the core process of admitting an applicant to the Security Council as prescribed by the Constitution: they are first nominated or approved by the Council, then confirmed by a majority of the Regional Assembly. If their application is rejected or not acted upon for 30 days by the Council, the Regional Assembly may confirm them by a two-thirds majority vote.
Court ruling number 10 (2012), On Applications to the Security Council.
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?
This ruling violates Article 6, Clause 12 of the Constitution,
and infringes on the Security Council and the Regional Assembly's constitutional right to determine their own procedures absent any higher legal requirements, the former of which had its right affirmed by the Court in On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
In On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies, the Court overturned On the Vice Delegate's Voting Rights within the Security Council due to its lack of any legal or constitutional basis for the Court’s invention of the Vice Delegate’s voting rights in the Security Council. In a similar manner, this ruling imposes an automatic admission process for Security Council applicants ex nihilo, based on nothing except the Court’s opinion and belief.
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 a whole for your request to be decided now.
Much like its overturned precedents regarding the NPA and the Vice Delegate’s voting rights in the Security Council, this ruling is another problematic attempt by the Court to legislate from the bench, by creating binding rules and requirements for other government bodies without any legal or constitutional foundation. In particular, the Constitution then and now does not include any requirements for rejected applications to be automatically moved to the Regional Assembly for a vote—merely that the RA may confirm them by a two-thirds majority—but the Court nonetheless mandated such a procedure. In so doing, the Court encroached upon the Security Council’s constitutional prerogative in handling applications and the Regional Assembly’s ability to decide when and how it would vote to confirm rejected applicants, thereby violating the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution.
In the interests of sound law and an effective separation of powers, the Court should overturn the extraconstitutional mandates of this ruling.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
It is worth noting that Article 5 of the Constitution, specifically Sections 1, 2, and 3, has been amended by the Regional Assembly since the ruling. The language of the admission process to the SC has been modified from an approve-and-admit process to a nominate-and-appoint one, with a new section clarifying the duration of nominations in effect. The exemption carveout conferred by the RA has also been eliminated. These amendments, however, do not materially change the core process of admitting an applicant to the Security Council as prescribed by the Constitution: they are first nominated or approved by the Council, then confirmed by a majority of the Regional Assembly. If their application is rejected or not acted upon for 30 days by the Council, the Regional Assembly may confirm them by a two-thirds majority vote.