Quote:Regarding some of Uni's concerns, this was being put together during the same time as the Great Council so it would just be updating this draft. Also, we can make a stipulation so that this needs a 75% vote to change it.

Not all of the Charter should require 75% for amendments - the Criminal Code and Penal Code has always been alterable with 50+1% support.

Quote:In respect of the legal question point, this doesn't supercede the Assembly in any way as far as I can see. If anything it makes it stronger. The court would only void a decision as a result of a legal question if it was "if they are found to have acted contrary to the Charter or Code of Laws in the process of making that decision". Something courts in every democracy do. Does anyone actually want to keep a decision of any body of TSP if it wasn't taken in accordance with our Charter or Col? All this does is make the relevant body go back and make the decision properly. Nothing in that line gives the judiciary the power to overturn a decision because they don't agree with it. You don't like a decision of the Delegate / VD or Cabinet? Resolve the matter in the Assembly or at the ballot box. That's politics. You don't think a decision has been lawfully made? That's the judiciary.

My concern is that:

1. Interpreting what is a contradiction with the Charter or a Code of Laws gives justices a lot of leeway and latitude to consider things contradictions which really aren't contradictions. I've seen it before and I'm worried about executive and assembly decisions being voided basically because some influential justices don't like them.

2. It can be very difficult to reverse the voiding of an executive or Assembly decision. For example, if the court were to look at its tea leaves and come to the conclusion that the process of Belschaft's security risk declaration was unconstitutional - it'd be difficult to re-vote on everything to return Belschaft back to being a security risk. The cabinet would have to revote and the Assembly would have to re-vote. It'd be a few weeks and a major opportunity for Belschaft. Arguably, his citizenship could be reinstated right there - giving him a voice in all of the proceedings and the ability to derail the conversations. It'd be a media hoopla over a situation where procedure WAS followed, but some justices didn't like the decision and could vaguely argue that something wasn't right about it.

I understand you have the best of intentions here, but the document simply carries with it a lot of institutional problems and not too much benefit.

I do like the idea of the 'first among equals' and I like that we're clarifying the relationship of the court between residents and non-citizens, but I don't think a new document is necessary and even if it were, a lot of the additions here are very problematic.