| LQ: Approapriate Chair Behavior |
Your honor,
Recent stalling by the Chair of the Assembly and his appointed Deputy has prompted me to submit this question, referencing the Legislative Procedures Act: Quote:The Chair is responsible for creating voting threads and recording votes. In the event that the Chair does not or cannot perform these duties in a reasonable time frame, any legislator may create voting threads and record votes.What is considered a "reasonable" amount of time before a legislator may create the voting thread himself, assuming that both the chair and his appointed Deputy are not on Leave of Absence? Signed,
![[Image: tspsig.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323623854591180801/329130815340412930/tspsig.png) Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance Citizen of The East Pacific Former Positions:
Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA Talon of Firehehlm Munifiex of The Roman Empire ![[Image: rv43j5bZ3p1Rs0A01odvThXy-TLzgwlhUTl_mY9E...66-h654-rw]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rv43j5bZ3p1Rs0A01odvThXy-TLzgwlhUTl_mY9EGkiEks-YKf31JOYzp7pyzeivAZlE_6KpcL0UZes=w1366-h654-rw)
Whereas rolandarmstrong requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question:
What is considered a “reasonable” amount of time before a legislator may create a voting thread himself, assuming that both the chair and his appointed Deputy are not on Leave of Absence?
Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.
It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:
Kris Kringle Permanent Justice Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honor,
Yes, I do want to know, what was your thought process? Just curious, though the issue this was in response to has been resolved. Signed,
Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance Citizen of The East Pacific Former Positions:
Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA Talon of Firehehlm Munifiex of The Roman Empire
Issuing a determination of justiciability is among the most consequential duties afforded a Justice, if anything due to the fact that it gives him considerable power over the consideration or dismissal of important legal issues. Beyond the submission of a reworded question, there is no recourse in case the original question is deemed non-justiciable, nor does the law offer clearly stated reasons why a question could or should be ruled as such.
In the case of the question submitted by rolandarmstrong, I considered the legal nature of the question and the risks the Court might face should it be granted, with the intent of deciding whether it was proper for such a question to be decided in a venue such as the High Court, rather than the floor of the Assembly or any other venue of a more political nature. It is worth noting that this in-chambers opinion cannot be construed as a response to the question posed by rolandarmstrong, nor does it hold any precedential value, beyond the enumeration of the reasons why the question was ruled non-justiciable. First I considered the legal nature of the question. In other words, does it concern itself with a question of law and how a specific law could be reasonably interpreted? Or does it deal with the execution of laws according to standards that should be primarily set by the community itself? While the petitioner indeed asked on the interpretation of a particular law, it is a matter of debate whether the issue itself was a question of law. A determination on what can be considered reasonable is inherently subjective. A certain Chair might be particularly active and start votes minutes after a motion was seconded. In such a case, a delay of one or two days, while not outrageous, might be considered unreasonable, according to the standards set by the Chair and to which the community is consenting. A Chair who has considerable responsibilities in real life might not be in a position to be so efficient, and might require anywhere between a couple of hours to a couple of days before starting a vote. In such a case, a different standard for reasonability might apply. A Chair who has unexpectedly found himself busy with other matters might be reasonably excused from exercising his usual diligence. However, such a standard is not one that can be determined by the Court through any virtue of legal interpretation. Rather, this standard cannot be reasonably set by anyone other than the Assembly, which is, after all, the primary beneficiary of the actions performed by the Chair, and to whom the Chair is ultimately accountable. Should the community decide that the time the Chair takes to start votes is not reasonable, there are informal and legal remedies to this, ranging from open criticism, to public pressure, and finally the mechanism of recall. This only provides further evidence that the reasonability of actions by the Chair, save in particular cases, is a matter of political, rather than legal, review, and therefore would not be a matter due to be considered by the Court. There are two risks, should the Court take such a political question. First, any legal remedy that the Court could provide would likely be impractical. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to establish a set standard for reasonability, not least of all for the reasons already outlined above, so the Court would likely serve no role other than to further confuse the issue, whereas a solution proposed and discussed in the Assembly, where the members are better aware of the subtleties of the issue, could be more effective in solving the issue, should that be the intent of a majority of its members. Second, and perhaps most important, this could set a precedent where the Court takes political questions, giving an answer would either be ineffective or political in nature, thereby diminishing the integrity of the Court, and its ability to keep the public trust when solving questions that would truly relate to issues of legal importance. While the Court is certainly capable of exercising common sense, such exercise is not the business of the Court, whose duty relates to the interpretation of the law, and while common sense can be a useful tool to that effect, it cannot be the main way in which business is conducted. In addition, it is quite possible that what some take as common sense may be uncommon and senseless, solely logical from their own perspective, but completely illogical from the perspective of others, rendering pointless the exercise in common sense. In view of these reasons, namely the political nature of the question, the existence of more appropriate venues for its consideration, and the risks associated with any possible consideration, I made the determination that the question be ruled non-justiciable, and therefore not receive further judicial consideration. Kris Kringle Permanent Justice Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
The petitioner hereby withdraws the legal question. I thank the court for its response.
Signed,
Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance Citizen of The East Pacific Former Positions:
Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA Talon of Firehehlm Munifiex of The Roman Empire |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |