| [2209.HR] In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV |
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2209.HR] IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV SUBMISSION 02 JUN 2022 DOCKET NUMBER 2209.HR REFERENCE NAME In-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV PETITIONER Belschaft APPEAL Does the action of the Chair to not refer A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV to the in-game region for consent violate the rights protected by Article Three, Clause Five of the Charter? CASE LINK https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10502.html DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY - DISCUSSION OPEN TO CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE AND JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR 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
Justiciable. I would like to enter my arguments in favor of Justiciability from 2208.HQ into the record. This case is related to the previous one, and as such the argument for justiciability transfers into this one.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I will vote in favour of justiciability in the interest of allowing for further review, and suggest granting Belschaft's request for an injunction.
Should we repeat the ongoing arrangement of myself as presiding and you as secondary? 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 think that arrangement is satisfactory. The original case filed injunctions, do we think those are warranted in this new case?
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I would propose the following for an injunction:
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2209.HR] IN-GAME CONSENT FOR A2205.05 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XIV SUBMISSION 02 JUN 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 05 JUN 2022 CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE ORDER, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR. Whereas this Court is empowered by Article 9 of the Judicial Act to make use of temporary injunctions compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts, it is ordered as follows: BACKGROUND On 29 May 2022 Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands certified the passage of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils, an amendment to the Charter that revamped the process to convene and hold Great Councils, without referring the same to a gameside vote. On 02 June 2022 Belschaft submitted a review request on the matter contenting that, owing to the fact that the amendment removes the mechanism of gameside consultation as a requirement to convene a Great Council, the Chair ought to have referred the matter to a gameside vote as per Article III, Section 5 and Article XIII, Section 2 of the Charter. Given the magnitude of a Great Council and the ambiguity should one be convened without clarity on its legal legitimacy, preventive action is necessary to ensure an orderly process within the bounds of the law. TEMPORARY INJUNCTION The Chair of the Assembly is hereby ordered not to certify the passage of A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils and of any resolutions that may have been brought to a vote pursuant to it. In the event that either the amendment or any resolutions that may have been brought to a vote pursuant to it have already been certified, the Chair of the Assembly is hereby ordered not to bring to a vote any resolution pursuant to the amendment and the Chair of the Great Council is hereby ordered not to convene said meeting. This injunction will remain in force until the High Court issues a ruling on the underlying case, at which point the same shall take precedence, or until two weeks have expired and no extension shall have intervened, whichever happens first. It is so ordered.
2209.HR.SO | Issued 05 Jun 2022 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
Looks good to me, sorry for the delayed response.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
Per the Chair's response, I would like to reiterate my argument that while the RMB's current activities and governance might not be affected currently, the future activities and governance could be affected by the results of a GC. The fact that the RMB was denied a chance to confirm or deny such a future (by voting to have a GC) ahead of time violates Article XIII, Section 2 and Article III, Section 5.
Also in violation could quite possibly be Article III, Section 4, because the RMB was deprived of their ability to vote, if the Court decides that the Chair made the wrong decision. Though, if we tied Article III, Section 4 to the opinion, I fear that the wrong precedent would be created, that anything for any reason might need to go to vote on the RMB because the RMB would be denied the vote if we aren't careful with its scope. -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
I disagree for a number of reasons:
1. The law -Article I, Section 4; Article III, Section 5; Article XIII, Section 2 of the Charter- refers to the passage of law that "directly affects the gameside community or its home governance". I am not sure that the removal of the gameside vote from the mechanism to convene a Great Council is something that directly affects the gameside community. At most the effect would be indirect and completely hypothetical, since a Great Council would conceivably be held yet not change a single thing about gameside governance. 2. These provisions were added within the context of a broader discussion about the degree to which the gameside should have a vote in the consideration of laws, both constitutional and general. If you look at the discussion you can see that the logic was to focus on what truly affects how the gameside experiences the game on a practical basis, rather than just to give them a voice on all possible matters. Yes, the amendment removed the gameside vote, but has it truly and directly changed gameside governance? Referring back to Point #1, I'd say that it has not. I'll quote Glen here, since they were the primary drafter of the Charter: sandaoguo Wrote:The approach should be functional. What actually affects the game side experience? What kinds of effects are enough to trigger an in game vote? It's one thing to vote on a law because it changes how the LC works, and another to vote on a treaty because it means the Embassies list will be altered. 3. This should probably be our initial line of inquiry, which is the determination of what level of deference we should give to the Chair. The power to determine if a law requires a gameside vote is given to the Chair by the Charter, so clearly they are meant to be the authority that makes that determination. While the Court should be able step in to review if a given determination is legally sound, I wonder if it might not make more sense to be generally deferential and only overturn a decision if there is clear evidence that the decision was not reasonable or legally sound, or if there was corrupt or otherwise undue intent. After all, it would make sense to avoid setting a precedent where the Court can routinely overturn Chair decisions without a high burden of proof, to the point that the Chair's power would be rendered meaningless. 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
Do you have any comments in response?
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
My apologies, I read it, but forgot to respond.
I’m not particularly swayed by the first argument, particularly since a GC could change laws without RMB support, especially considering that the Assembly passed a resolution just weeks before the GC resolution stating its intention to abolish the LC if things didn’t change. On the surface, it might appear that the Assembly could be going around the constitutionality mandated process for change in that aspect. Obviously the LC is not the sole issue of the GC, but it was a considerable debate during the initial discussions for a GC. Those are not my views, as I don’t think the Assembly is doing that, but the argument could be made. However, I do agree with your second and third argument, which should be the focus of the case. We definitely don’t want to go down the slippery slope of undermining the chair. It would be a good idea to create a test to find out what would rise to the level of an RMB vote, though, oddly enough, your example of an RMB vote for embassies is actually a thing. I would type more, but I’m on mobile right now and my thumbs are tired. 
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |