| [LEGAL QUESTION] Actions of the Chair |
|
Recently, Belschaft has submitted a Legal Question requesting that the Courts determine the legality of the Chair's actions in not bringing legislation, that has been duly motioned and seconded, to vote.
I'm inclined to dismiss the case, because according to law, while not explicitly defined, Article 4, Section 3.5 of the Charter states that "The Court Justices shall have the authority to examine laws and make recommendations to the Assembly, however they may not issue an arbitrary judgement or opinion on laws without a specific legal question being filed." which implies that Legal Questions are meant to examine and clarify laws only, hence it is not the place of the Courts to determine the legality of an official's actions. However, while the Court, in the form of its predecessor, the Supreme Court, and also in its current form, has ruled on what officials cannot do, never has the Court, in any of its iterations, explicitly ruled on whether or not an official's actions is in contravention with the law. Nor has the Court been requested to explicitly determine the legal ramifications of an official's actions, given that this legislation was not brought to vote by the Assembly, which would have otherwise made the abovementioned possible. Also, it is worth noting that the Chair has since brought the relevant pieces of legislation to vote, specifically here and here. Thoughts?
While I don't know if Article 4, Section 3.5 applies here, I agree this should be dismissed. I do believe the Court has the legal grounds to decide if an elected official has broken any laws or failed to full their duties as defined in the Charter, as long as the Court's opinion is requested. However, I don't think Unibot has done anything of that nature.
Belschaft has come before the Court to ask if Unibot has failed to fulfill his duties as the Chair of the Assembly, specifically regarding the suggested changes to Parole. While I understand people's frustration with HEM's draft receiving a motion and a second and still taking some time to be placed a vote, Unibot was upfront about his reasoning for delaying the vote, stating that he felt more time was needed before the Assembly could adequately and objectively discuss the proposal, given the circumstances and the proximity to Milograd being granted Parole. I feel Unibot's delaying of the vote was actually him appropriately fulfilling his duties as the Chair of the Assembly, and I do not feel any punishment should be given.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
While I disagree on the chair delaying votes, I can agree no laws have been broken and that this case can be dismissed.
I just realised something.
In the High Court's previous ruling on Contradictory Resolutions, we stated that "As the Chair is responsible for the passage of legislation, in this case contradictory or otherwise, personal discretion or executive policy should not apply as this may obstruct the passage of legislation, thus preventing the Chair from fulfilling legal obligations in the discharge and execution of his duties." However, in delaying the voting of the Parole legislation, Unibot was exercising personal discretion, and it was logical, it was common sense. We should perhaps provide an amendment to our previous ruling something to the effect of "The Chair may exercise personal discretion in the movement of legislation where appropriate. However, it is maintained that all legislation that has been motioned and seconded must be voted upon, unless withdrawn by the drafter, or wherein new rules have been introduced in the Assembly that result in the change of circumstances."
I think this is a sensible solution. The way we worded it did eliminate all discretionary powers the Chair once enjoyed, and for situations like this, I believe discretionary power should be an option.
However I would change "... or wherein new rules have been" to: "....or wherein new Laws have been passed by the Assembly...."
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
Farengeto, Llamas: What are your thoughts on the bellow language and the Chair's actions? Do you believe the Chair has failed to execute his duties?
Quote:"The Chair may exercise personal discretion in the movement of legislation where appropriate, with an explanation being provided to the Assembly. However, it is maintained that all legislation that has been motioned and seconded must be voted upon, unless withdrawn by the drafter, or wherein new Laws have been passed by the Assembly that result in the change of circumstances." To be added on to the response of Belschaft's Legal Question: Quote:In light of this Legal Question, The High Court recommends that the Assembly examine Article 3, Section 2 of the Charter and clearly define what, if any, Discretionary Powers the Chair of the Assembly should posses.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
I suggest this change in wording
"The Chair may exercise personal discretion in the movement of legislation where appropriate, with an explanation being provided to the Assembly"
Sorry for all the double posting.... but I also believe we should exercise our right to suggest the Assembly examine the role of the Chair and clearly define Discretionary Powers so as to avoid further persecution for sensibly doing their job. I've added some suggested language (in red) to the above post for the sake of stream lining.
Edit: I realized it would be more appropriate attached to the future language of the other ruling.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
I can get behind the wording, but I assure you that there'd be discontentment in the Assembly over this. That being said, I suggest the wording below for whether what the Chair of the Assembly did was appropriate (modified from GB's response to the issue):
In response to whether the Chair of the Assembly's delaying of the vote was in breach of the law, while the Court understands and acknowledges that some parties are frustrated that a draft, having received a motion and a second, still took some time to be placed a vote, the Court notes that the Chair of the Assembly was upfront about his reasoning for delaying the vote, stating that he felt more time was needed before the Assembly could adequately and objectively discuss the proposal.. It is in the Court's opinion that the delaying of the vote was actually him appropriately fulfilling his duties as the Chair of the Assembly. With regards to the issue of punishment and legal ramifications, the Court is unable to render a judgement as the misuse of authority is not a criminal offence, of which are defined in Articles 5 and 6 of the Code of Laws, in the Penal and Criminal Code. Furthermore, no legal proceedings have been initiated against the Chair of the Assembly. It is in the Court's opinion that other appropriate channels, such as the initiating of a recall motion be sought instead. The Court further acknowledges that this judgement is in contradiction with a previous judgement, HCLQ1407, and has resolved to partially overturn the judgement, as reflected below: Quote:"As the Chair is responsible for the passage of legislation, in this case contradictory or otherwise, personal discretion or executive policy should not apply as this may obstruct the passage of legislation, thus preventing the Chair from fulfilling legal obligations in the discharge and execution of his duties." In light of this Legal Question, The High Court recommends that the Assembly examine Article 3, Section 2 of the Charter and clearly define what, if any, Discretionary Powers the Chair of the Assembly should posses. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |