HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
AMICUS BRIEF
ARGUMENT
Your Honor,
Article Three, Section Five of the Charter does not prevent the amendment from taking effect because Article Thirteen, Section Two of the Charter supersedes it. Whereas Article Three, Section Five of the Charter deals with general laws, Article Thirteen, Section Two, however, directly deals with amendments. It is only natural that a section directly dealing with amending the Charter should take precedence over a general provision found somewhere else.
Even if Article Three, Section Five of the Charter does effect amendments, the petitioner's claim would still be meritless. 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." The Chair has ruled that this amendment does not affect the gameside community. Although the petitioner claims that the amendment removes the right of consent; therefore, it does affect the gameside community, the Court cannot sustain this claim because valid arguments to the contrary are present, namely that the amendment does not have any direct effect on the day-to-day operation of the gameside community. Naturally, the question of why that argument is "sufficiently egregious" arises. Petitioner does not explain why this reasoning is "sufficiently egregious," Since they are trying to overturn the Chair, they must provide not merely present an alternative rationale to the contrary.
The Chair’s ruling is not egregious or even "sufficiently egregious" and can be substantiated by a logical argument. Thus, the Chair's determination about the said amendment is legally valid. Since the judgment is legally correct, how can the amendment legally affect the gameside community?
Therefore, the decision of the Chair must be affirmed.
Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
|
