Users browsing this thread:

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-12-2021, 08:59 AM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2101.HQ] CONCERNING ASSEMBLY POWERS
SUBMISSION 12 FEBRUARY 2021

DOCKET NUMBER
2101.HQ

REFERENCE NAME
Concerning Assembly Powers

SUBMITTER
Islands of Unity

QUESTION

Has the assembly limited it's ability to issue commendations and condemnations by rejecting the formal ability to do so?
Do Assembly matters previously rejected by a majority of the Assembly need explicit confirmation of ability by the Assembly in order to be enacted later?
Is the ability to issue commendations and condemnations considered a crucial part of the democratic system that is retained without a formal system to issue them?

CASE LINK
https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9229.html

DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY - DISCUSSION OPEN TO ALL JUSTICES

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

(This post was last modified: 03-06-2021, 12:58 PM by Kris Kringle.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-12-2021, 09:06 AM

Generally I dislike questions that don't refer to specific laws, but overall I don't know how much we can decide here. The Assembly is the "supreme legislative authority" of the region, there isn't much leeway there. Then again, it may be the case that clarification is needed. I guess I could be convinced either way. Any thoughts?

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

***Roavin*** · 02-12-2021, 11:58 AM

Question 3 is definitely not justiciable, as it's neither up to us to judge, nor is there a basis for deciding based on our law, what is or is not considered (by anyone) a "crucial part of the democratic system".

It gets a bit more interesting for 1 and 2. The answer for question 1 is, I think, obvious for the same reason Kris stated. For question 2, it occurs to me that the question isn't necessarily about the Assembly doing things, but other institutions (such as Cabinet or the Delegate) doing such things. Now, neither question is necessarily asking about the applicability of law to a hypothetical situation (as required for justiciability by JA 4.1), but rather about the applicability of an explicit and deliberate lack of law. Really, what 1 and 2 are asking is if the assembly not passing a law (which is, in a way, a process described by law) is binding in any way. So, annoyingly given how obvious the answer is, I think 1 and 2 are justiciable.

(This post was last modified: 02-12-2021, 12:00 PM by Roavin.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-12-2021, 12:05 PM

I almost had to double check when I saw "latest post by Roavin". Nervous

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

**Griffindor** · 02-13-2021, 02:52 AM

I too do not enjoy questions not based on law. As a whole, I don't think any of the questions are Justiceable, particularly because they don't have a root within the law. I see taking these questions as a potentially unneeded limiting of the scope of the Assembly when the Assembly can decide for itself to have that power or not.

-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

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-13-2021, 08:33 AM

What do you think @Belschaft?

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

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-13-2021, 10:20 PM

Here's how things stand so far:

Questions 1 and 2 seem to be tied with Roavin in favour of justiciability and Griffindor against. I'm undecided, though leaning towards no based on the lack of legal basis for the questions.
Question 3 has 3 votes against justiciability. I've been convinced by Roavin's and Griffindor's arguments.

The rules say that ties are resolved in favour of the status quo, that being no justiciability. Does anyone have any arguments in favour or against justiciability that might be able to result in a majority vote either way?

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

***Roavin*** · 02-13-2021, 10:30 PM

Legislative Procedure Act 1.8 states:

Quote:(8) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for two weeks after the closure of the vote.[snip]

The exact semantics of 1.8 are most likely irrelevant to the case but may inform justiciability in the following sense: It establishes that a bill failing to pass in the Assembly is, in fact, a matter of law, by virtue of there being extant law about it.

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-13-2021, 11:28 PM

I’ve asked Islands to reconsider the phrasing of their questions. Maybe that would give us greater clarity on the nature of the questions.

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

**Belschaft** · 02-14-2021, 03:02 PM

Question 3 is completely un-justiciable, but would be effectively answered by any ruling addressing Questions 1 and 2.

Questions 1 & 2 aren't really legal questions as there isn't any law to cite on them, but rather matters of simple logic/common sense; the Assembly declining to pass a law authorising/creating something is not the same thing as the Assembly passing a law banning said thing. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise and as such would be inclined to dismiss the whole thing as a waste of the courts time; were it the case that someone was trying to issue a commendation or condemnation via the Assembly and this was being challenged I might view it differently.

I think 1 & 2 are justiciable, but that doesn't mean we should hear them.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 02-14-2021, 04:57 PM by Belschaft.)