(06-02-2022, 10:55 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(06-02-2022, 10:18 PM)Domais Wrote: 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.

It is worth pointing out that 2208.HQ was dismissed on account of the fact that it asked the Court to determine whether the resolution in question warranted gameside consideration, a function that rests entirely on the Chair of the Assembly. The Court did not pass judgement on whether the Chair's own determination was legally sound, since that is an entirely different question.

Your Honor,

The question is still not justiciable because once an amendment is lawfully passed it is a part of the Charter. Moreover, the clause of the bill of rights cannot stop an amendment to the law if this was the case then that would mean that the Charter is unamendable as to certain provisions despite the Charter not saying that. Although I cannot think of another situation on hand ruling in favor of the petitioner sets a precedent that the Charter can not be changed in certain aspects. Which would effectively render certain portions of the Charter unconstitutional (Article XIII). Which is nonsense and cannot be allowed to stand.