As I stated in an amicus brief, I think we should revisit the exact mandate the Charter gives our High Court. Here's what I wrote at the time:

The issue is that the Court is only selectively empowered by the Charter, and I honestly don't know why. III.6 allows the court to strike down actions, but only if those violate rights or freedoms. VIII.4 lets the court strike down laws and regulations, but not actions/directives/orders unless they are specifically from the Cabinet or Chair of Assembly, and only if they violate the Charter or constitutional law, while general law can be, basically, violated at will.

Frankly, these restrictions are absurd. Beyond absurd, even, they are horrifying. I don't even dare to write out all the ways in which laws can be violated at will with no possibility for legal recourse given literal interpretations.

I also outlined what I would intuitively expect the Court's power to be (in this case, as applicable to whether or not the Court may check whether a Legislator app denial was legal):

In short, my intuitive argument is as follows: the High Court is empowered by the Charter to review actions and strike them down if found to be unlawful. Such reviews are Legal Questions as per the Judicial Act ("Is this concrete action lawful?"). Malayan Singapura is a member, as determined in HCRR1801, which means they have standing to submit legal questions and therefore the question is justiciable.

To get the discussion going, let me start with Charter VIII.4:

4. The High Court has the power to declare any general law or regulation, Cabinet directive, Chair determination, and Local Council law or regulation, in whole or in part, void upon determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law.

Why is it this specific list, and why can't the High Court strike down any directive, determination, regulation, or ordinance that violates a law higher on the totem pole than itself?

Reply

That is a good question and I'm surprised this hasn't received anymore attention. The High Court should have the authority to strike down absolutely anything that is unlawful or unconstitutional.

some guy 

(This post was last modified: 07-03-2018, 01:39 PM by noisypineapples.)

Reply

I was initially thinking how could the High Court strike down something higher than itself, but then I remembered that impeachment existed. This is a good proposal.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

I was initially thinking how could the High Court strike down something higher than itself, but then I remembered that impeachment existed.

What?

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

Reply

I was initially thinking how could the High Court strike down something higher than itself, but then I remembered that impeachment existed.

What? 

Well, technically, the Supreme Court of the US (for example) is at about the same level of the President. So maybe my example was rather incorrect, but that's how I understand this proposal.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

Roavin was talking about laws or government actions that violate any rule that ranks higher than them. That is, an action violating a general law, a general law violating a constitutional law, and so on. He hadn't said anything about the position of the Court vis-à-vis other branches of government.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

Reply

My suspicion is that the list was written at a point where it was exhaustive, and has simply never been updated. Either that or simple human error/incompetence.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

My suspicion is that the list was written at a point where it was exhaustive, and has simply never been updated. Either that or simple human error/incompetence.

The former is my working assumption, too.

I think it should be changed to not be an exhaustive list but rather just a general "law, directive, or action".

Reply

My suspicion is that the list was written at a point where it was exhaustive, and has simply never been updated. Either that or simple human error/incompetence.

The former would be corrupt. When I wrote it, it encompassed all our of government institutions that could issue its own laws or pseudo-laws (like executive orders or proclamations). Since then, we've added LegComm. The part referencing only constitutional laws is just human error.

Reply

I don't think Bel was saying it wasn't updated out of malice. I principally wrote the LegComm Act and I can assure you it was simply not thinking about that part rather than intentionally putting it into legal jeopardy.

Reply