+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Government District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: High Court (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: Legal Question on Dual Membership in Parties (/thread-4887.html)
Legal Question on Dual Membership in Parties - Omega - 02-20-2017
Your honor, the Political Parties Act is very clear as to how many people must be a member of an organization for it to qualify as a party (4 people). However, my question is as follows:
Do members of a party who are also members of another party count toward the 4 member requirement?
I thank you for clearing up this confusion.
RE: Legal Question on Dual Membership in Parties - Roavin - 02-20-2017
Your honor,
if it pleases, a short amicus brief:
The law does not address dual membership whatsoever; Omega points at the membership requirements for a party to be legally recognized which is a completely separate matter. As such, a court decision that disallows dual membership at this point could only be done by interpreting the proverbial "spirit", not the "letter". However, there are no cases of dual membership in parties (which can be shown conclusively due to the requirement of updated party rosters in the PP law), and drafting deliberations for the PPA do not reveal any prior discussions or mentions of this topic. As such, a ruling against dual membership would be significantly more activist than the precedence in this great court shows.
RE: Legal Question on Dual Membership in Parties - Farengeto - 02-21-2017
The High Court will hear this legal question, hereafter designated HCLQ 1703. Interested parties are invited to submit an amicus brief on the matter.
RE: Legal Question on Dual Membership in Parties - Farengeto - 02-22-2017
Upon further review it is the opinion of this court that this question is not justicable due to its failure to include the relevant sections of the law in its question (as required by Article 3.2 of the Court Procedures Act) and by extension failing to provide any evidence for which the court may rule on in this case. The High Court therefore dismisses HCLQ 1703.