| [DEBATING] AB.1903.04 — Amendment to Article VIII of the Charter |
|
It occurred to me today that it is theoretically possible that the High Court could invalidate laws which are vital to the government or security of the region. While I do not think this would ever occur, the possibility of the High Court revoking this legislation without having a stop-gap measure is a concerning one. As I thought about this, I realised that one solution could be delaying any invalidation of parts of law by fourteen days, which should be enough for the Assembly to quickly draft, vote on, and pass a replacement. I am not entirely sure about this idea; however, I thought I would put it forward for comment.
Below is a possible way to draft this idea into the law. It would have to meet constitutional debating and voting requirements this way. There are probably other approaches as well. I am open to considering them. Quote:THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC Anyway, not being sure myself, I am interested in what other people have to say about this idea.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
I don't think this is necessary or even helpful. If something urgent comes up, we have the executive order mechanism, and there's nothing preventing the Court from releasing a case opinion to Cabinet first before releasing it to the world.
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
If the Court voids a law, it's because it's unconstitutional, conflicts with a higher law or otherwise violates people's rights. Its supposed urgency or necessity should have no role in its continued validity.
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 ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 4 users Like Kris Kringle's post:• Beepee, Farengeto, Imperial Frost Federation, Poppy
I actually think something like this is a great idea.
When it's clear the court decides something as to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, there's no reason the region should be held ransom due to technicalities. 14 days might be a bit steep, but I think we need to provide some window for the Assembly to draft and put a new law into effect. Maybe 7 days?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I would argue there’s no reason the region should he held ransom to laws that have been found to be unconstitutional.
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
(04-01-2019, 08:34 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I would argue there’s no reason the region should he held ransom to laws that have been found to be unconstitutional. Well, Kris, as the supreme decider of what is constitutional or not, I can understand why you'd feel that way. For the rest of us, I can understand the fear of having an otherwise useful law struck down over a technicality.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
As Roavin pointed out, the Cabinet has the power to issue executive orders in cases where legal voids exist. I really see no point in keeping laws that have been found to conflict with other laws, when there’s a perfectly legal way to address the issue.
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
I don't know why we're arguing to keep these here. We're talking about laws that have explicitly been declared unconstitutional.
If nothing else, think of how using that law works practically. The law itself is unconstitutional, therefore any actions under that law are likewise unconstitutional. Any use of those laws during this so-called "grace period" would never hold up in a legal defence, because they're already found to be unconstitutional. Are there really any matters so serious that we need to resort to using illegal actions as a so-called "stopgap"? If there's actually something serious, there are legal grounds to do so through executive orders. But for almost all realistic matters, there aren't.
The following 6 users Like Farengeto's post:• Belschaft, Imperial Frost Federation, Poppy, Rebeltopia, Seraph, The Sakhalinsk Empire
We currently have a legal question that would essentially make it impossible to ban someone for conduct violations, if the court decides that there needs to be a court case heard for every infraction. See: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6937.html
This would have very real consequences as, essentially, no one would be able to be banned and, those who are already banned would (assumedly) be allowed to return. Now, clearly the spirit of the law is to protect players regardless of the bill of rights, which, I think, is both practical and useful. However, if the court comes back and rules against this law ... are you ok with that?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
No law is designed to protect players “regardless of” the Bill of Rights. Laws are (or should be) designed to protect players “within the context of” the Bill of Rights.
I ask again, why the urgency? Farengeto has already wondered what issue would be so urgent that it couldn’t wait for proper debate in the Assembly. If an issue really is so urgent that it couldn’t wait for prior discussion, the Cabinet can pass an executive order that remedies the situation while also addressing the issues that led the Court to void this hypothetical law. We already have mechanisms to address these problems. 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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |