HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
AMICUS BRIEF
ARGUMENT
Your Honor,
This case is of little importance as just a few days ago this Court issued a ruling on the same or almost exact request a few days ago. It found that case to not justiciable on the almost the same question except that the petitioner has limited the scope of their question. That ruling should not be so quickly overturned solely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with that ruling.
The Chair has the power to determine whether or not an amendment affects the gameside community, and cannot be challenged unless that determination is "sufficiently egregious". Since the Court has previously found that a challenge to the Chair, in this case, was not justiciable it follows that said determination was not "sufficiently egregious". Thus, the Chair's determination about the said amendment is legally valid. Since the determination is legally valid how can the amendment legally have an effect on the gameside community? Does it not follow that if the petitioner's claims are heard, it would not be a question solely about a question under the Charter, but rather, the constitutionality of the Charter itself. If the claims of the petitioner are true then the Charter itself is unconstitutional. Therefore, this case is not justiciable.
Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
|
