Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 11-24-2019, 04:39 PM

The problem with relying on intent is that it's pretty common for people to disagree on what the intent was.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

Nat · 11-24-2019, 05:45 PM

(11-24-2019, 04:12 PM)Beepee Wrote: In the Palpatine case, Nat has said (paraphrasing) whilst theres a process for changing systems, Nat would allow a different process (I.e. not in line with the written word of the law and through the assembly).

Having read through my ruling again, I can now see how you came to this conclusion. I apologise that my writing was not sufficiently clear. The argument I attempted to convey was that:

1. The Charter allows for a new state to be formed through a democratic process (Great Council);
2. Palpatine proposed that a new state be formed through a democratic process (Assembly);
3. Therefore, what Palpatine did cannot be a crime (at worst, he is procedurally deficient; this is not a crime though).

I did not attempt to determine whether a vote by the ordinary Assembly would be a valid one. Doing so would not have changed the outcome of my decision in this the criminal case.

Again, I apologise that my ruling was not clear enough. This is something I will work on in the future (if I am confirmed to the Court).

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

(This post was last modified: 11-24-2019, 05:49 PM by Nat.)

**Beepee** · 11-24-2019, 08:51 PM

No worries.

I actually think that you have a good logical mind and am interested to see how you do in the position.

I'll be giving you a thumbs up on vote day!

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

Bleakfoot · 11-25-2019, 04:39 AM

(11-24-2019, 04:39 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The problem with relying on intent is that it's pretty common for people to disagree on what the intent was.

It's not necessarily about "relying" on intent, but about having regard to it, particularly where a strict literal interpretation of the legislation would produce an undesirable or counterintuitive outcome.

It is actually pretty common in English law (and probably other common law jurisdictions as well, though I'm less familiar with those) for courts to examine the intention of Parliament in order to resolve the meaning of a disputed clause in legislation. Items such as transcripts of parliamentary debates where the clause was discussed can be admissible as evidence. Fortunately we have an archive of debate threads that could be put to a similar purpose.

**Belschaft** · 11-25-2019, 08:05 AM

(11-25-2019, 04:39 AM)Bleakfoot Wrote:
(11-24-2019, 04:39 PM)Belschaft Wrote: The problem with relying on intent is that it's pretty common for people to disagree on what the intent was.
It's not necessarily about "relying" on intent, but about having regard to it, particularly where a strict literal interpretation of the legislation would produce an undesirable or counterintuitive outcome.

It is actually pretty common in English law (and probably other common law jurisdictions as well, though I'm less familiar with those) for courts to examine the intention of Parliament in order to resolve the meaning of a disputed clause in legislation. Items such as transcripts of parliamentary debates where the clause was discussed can be admissible as evidence. Fortunately we have an archive of debate threads that could be put to a similar purpose.

And our Court does that, but only if the common sense reading of the text produces an absurdity.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

North Prarie · 11-26-2019, 07:46 AM

I totally support Nat’s nomination. He’s a great new-er talent to the region and will be very valuable on the High Court.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-26-2019, 10:23 AM

With respect to fellow legislators' opinions, I see nothing wrong or discouraging about a Justice who believes that the letter of the law should be given proper deference. We all know the Assembly is flawed: it is made up of individuals who have no significant background in lawmaking; mistakes and misinterpretations are bound to happen.

When the meaning of a law is unclear, contradictory or absurd, it makes perfect sense to refer to debate threads and posts by the authors of the law to determine what the intent was, and how that could be reconciled, if possible and appropriate, with the letter of the law. This should not, however, lead us to ignore what may be clearly written in favour of what intent may have been. If the law says A, quite clearly so, and leaves little room for ambiguity, once carefully examined, it would be absurd for the Court to rule that it should mean B, simply because the intent may have been different from what was eventually passed.

I said that the Assembly (not unlike the Cabinet and the Court, if we are honest with ourselves) is flawed, but we also must operate with the understanding that it knows what it does. If the Assembly passes a law that clearly says A, we must approach any case from the assumption that it meant to say A. If we approach all cases assuming that spirit is supreme over letter, then we might as well not draft laws and merely write posts about how we intend government to work. Except...those are called laws, and we write them down and vote on them so we all can agree on how things should work. If their writing is deficient, the solution is not to legislate through the bench, it is to have a debate and amend what is desired.

I agree with Belschaft in that intent has a legitimate role in legal interpretation, as it can be very useful in informing Justices on the purpose of a law, or on what issues it sought to remedy, but it should not be used to ignore that which might be clearly written. If a plain reading of the law produces a non-absurd interpretation, then it is not the Court's job to ignore what the Assembly voted on, since we have to assume that legislators knew what they were approving. The reality might be different, but to assume otherwise would be to turn ourselves into alternate legislators, and I don't think that would be a positive development.

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

**Amerion** · 11-30-2019, 09:39 AM

Given the lack of further discussion, I motion a vote.

**Seraph** · 11-30-2019, 02:48 PM

Second

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

Nakari · 12-04-2019, 03:31 AM

This nomination has passed.