(02-17-2015, 10:33 AM)Hopolis Wrote:

Quote:Is there anyway we could modify the clause suggested by former CJ Gustave Berr to make the Courts an effective form of checks and balances against official? Or should we just leave it out?

My personal view would be to leave it out.  I'm really not comfortable with a legal question being linked to restitution without trial. Also, if the Court has concerns that an official has abused their position then we always have the option of one of us recusing ourselves and bringing forward charges.

That being said, and hopefully I've interpreted the proposed clause correctly, if it was concern about some sort of executive or legislative tyranny, perhaps the answer is to focus on the decision itself? Article 4, Section 1(4) already lets the court deal with problems with general law so something similar for the actions of an official. The wording for this wouldn't be an easy one though. A brief thought...

Quote:In response to a Legal Question, the High Court may void a decision of the Assembly, the Delegate, the Vice-Delegate or the Cabinet if they are found to have acted contrary to the Charter or Code of Laws in the process of making that decision.

The intent would be to force the entity concerned to go back and make the decision properly.

I could go with that. The intent is to basically make the Cabinet/Del/VD more accountable to the people.