High Court Library & Ruling Hall

[Blade!]

High Court Library & Ruling Hall (Semi-Private)


~Only the A.G. or appropriate GM may post in this thread, but the information is Public Knowledge.

~Information/requests/petitions to be conveyed to the High Court should go through the Attorney General's Office.

~All decisions listed remain the law of the land except where otherwise noted.

~On determining Presidencial Vacancy and succesion - Review initated by MNA Stewart (OVERRULED -- by Constitutional Amendment)
~On the Speaker's precendence over the President in the NA - Glasser vs. Langley
~On the shrinking of the NA by precedent law - Stewart vs. State (via Per Blade!)
~On dismissing MILE Judges (& other govt. employees) - Anton vs. MILE
~On the invalidity of using religiously recognized marriage in law criteria. - de la Vegas vs. State
~On the ability of provincial governments to limit religious practice - In re non-endangering religious wear
~On the interrelation between the powers of the General Assembly Speaker and the Senate Speaker - Langley et al. v. Williamson (MOOT -- no bicameral legislature)
~On the power of the President to unilaterally sign treaties - In re Executive Treaty Power

 

[Blade!]

The HC on "Vacancy"

From the Desk of Supreme Judge of the High Court, David Dravidasthas

The High court has met on the following matter, as presented by the Honorable Attourney General of the High Court, John O'Floinn. Below, the relavant portions of the basic matter are presented in the form of the original summary of the situation as provided by the AG's office:

Phalanx wrote on 30-11-2003 18:29:
Justice Dravidasthas,


Commander John Stewart, an MNA for the DA, recently requested that the Court review the Presidential Succession amendment. I agreed to present his request to you. Specifically, this line troubles to the NA:

1. Should the office of the President be vacated, the Vice President shall succeed the President.

He is asking for the Court to rule on what excatly is meant by 'vacated', so the NA and cabinet can decided what to do in our current situation. They're well aware of the dictionary's definition, but there's much debate over how long a president has to be gone to be considered to have vacated office, or if he must actually be removed from office.....

John O'Floinn
Attorney General

Upon hearing additional counsel from the AG and a meeting of the High Court Justices, the following decrees are issued:

• As the President is the foremost position for the EUtopian Body Politic, as well as the foremost Representative of the face of the people... Unexpected Vacancy, can simply not be tolerated. Vacancy shall be defined as "Unavailable without explanation and notification to at least his immediate cabinet, which could be verified in writing, and not for excessive time. (OOC: game time of 8 days of no IC posts if no IC explanation, otherwise 14 days with cabinet provided explanation)
• The Presidency being determined "Vacated," the next in line of succesion will assume "Acting Presidency" and will be confirmed President by the High Court after a said period, barring the President's return, or another higher in the chain of succession. (OOC: after a game time of 4 days)
• The High Court now recognizes Dr. Jonathan Glasser as the "Acting President" given the absences of those above him in the chain of succesion as determined by the Presidential Succession Amendment of the EUtopian Constitution.
• The National Assembly is recommended to clarify the amendment to cover situations like this, if they are uncomfortable with the current interpretation.

~Supreme Judge of the High Court, D. Dravidasthas

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Justice Dravidasthas,

I have recently been hearign the debate between President Langley and Speaker Glasser's Attorney, Mr. Tilly, on the case the President has put forward, claiming the Speaker has misused his power by stifling the president. He has put forth the argument that while the Constitution doesn't directly give the President the power to debate his bills in the assembly, it does state that bills must have 'sufficient debate' before being voted upon, and he has stated that debate about a bill can be very difficult without the author present. Mr. Tilly has in turn said that the President usually has at least one of his party members in the NA and can speak through them. However, President Langley believes this may not always work out correctly, as sometimes partymates have very different views on certain issues. I believe he is correct in that.

If we look strictly at the constitution, President Langley is not restricted from debating his bills, but nor is he outright granted the power. As has been pointed out, the Speaker is responsible for regulating debate. However, Langley's points about the author's presence being very healthy for debate are, I believe, true.

I have several theories on this, which I will elaborate on momentarily, I am just getting my thoughts in order.

(OOC: Don't have time to finish up just now, I'll be back with the rest tomorrow)

 

[Blade!]

*Supreme Judge of the High Court of EUtopia, Per Dravidasthas, looks up from his desk, his robes flowing and swishing*

Are you finished Per AG?

*He shifts his view towards a TV camera*

Citizens of EUtopia, it is my duty to inform you that if by seven minutes until midnight*, President Langley has not protested, Vice-President, Per IKK, shall be made Acting President.

Thank you.

*Per Dravidasthas leaves for the National Assembly*


Appended Note: In view of the President's sum total absence, IKK has been made President.



*OOC: Craig Ashley's last IC post was 06-12-2003, 23:31 according to my clock; it was here.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Justices, I have an urgent matter requiring your immediate attention.

Dr. Glasser, speaker of the NA, has just requested that the Court immediately investigate the actions of Vice-Admiral Tulp, Chief of Staff of the Eutopian Navy. He has recently anounced in a press conference that he was removing President IKK from his position as Commander in Chief. He did not say he was suggesting it be done, or asking if he could do it, he said he was doing it. Glasser wants a ruling on wether or not this is constitutional. I don't recall the constitution giving the Naval Chief the power to remove his superior officer.

John O'Floinn, AG

 

[Blade!]

*Judge Flores speaks*

This is in no way Constitutional, and the action is not recognized by the High Court; THe High Court only recognizes President IKK as the CiC, and is disturbed by the very notion of the militar attempting to sieze Constitutionally delagated powers.

Per O'Floinn, I trust you will speed this message to Per Glasser, and that all parties will take note that the High Court stands firmly on this issue. The military is not a policy making body, it is a professional body dedicated to executing its orders as per the CiC's direction.

On a side note, have you finished presenting your material on the Speaker v. Presidents rights in the NA debate?

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I will pass the message to Dr. Glasser immediately. Admiral Tulp has requested to defend his actions before the Court, but unless it is requested that I admit him, I do not intend to.

I was a bit put off by Langley's second disappearance, but I will present my remaining opinions now.

Glasser was, in theory, within his rights to restrict Langley's speaking in the NA. Power is granted to the speaker to regulate debate. While Langley's argument that the constitution requires sufficient debate, and that a bill is much harder to debate without it's author, was quite compelling, if we read strictly off the Constitution, the President is never guaranteed the right to discuss his own bills.

I believe the President should have this ability, though the Speaker should retain the responsibility/authoriy of regulating debate in the NA, including restricting others (MNAs and the President) from speaking, if he deems them to speaking out of line.

 

[Blade!]

I have recently been hearign the debate between President Langley and Speaker Glasser's Attorney, Mr. Tilly, on the case the President has put forward, claiming the Speaker has misused his power by stifling the president. He has put forth the argument that while the Constitution doesn't directly give the President the power to debate his bills in the assembly, it does state that bills must have 'sufficient debate' before being voted upon, and he has stated that debate about a bill can be very difficult without the author present. Mr. Tilly has in turn said that the President usually has at least one of his party members in the NA and can speak through them. However, President Langley believes this may not always work out correctly, as sometimes partymates have very different views on certain issues. I believe he is correct in that.

If we look strictly at the constitution, President Langley is not restricted from debating his bills, but nor is he outright granted the power. As has been pointed out, the Speaker is responsible for regulating debate. However, Langley's points about the author's presence being very healthy for debate are, I believe, true...

---------------------------​

...Glasser was, in theory, within his rights to restrict Langley's speaking in the NA. Power is granted to the speaker to regulate debate. While Langley's argument that the constitution requires sufficient debate, and that a bill is much harder to debate without it's author, was quite compelling, if we read strictly off the Constitution, the President is never guaranteed the right to discuss his own bills.

I believe the President should have this ability, though the Speaker should retain the responsibility/authoriy of regulating debate in the NA, including restricting others (MNAs and the President) from speaking, if he deems them to speaking out of line.

From Supreme Judge, Per Dravidasthas's desk.

Whereas it has been established by the Constitution these things:

~The Constitution does not grant the President the power to debate his, or any other bills in the assembly.
~Bills must have 'sufficient debate' before being voted upon.
~The Speaker is responsible for regulating debate.​

Whereas it may be put forth that:

~The President may be the author of a particular bill.
~The presence of the author of a bill, is condusive to debate.
~The ultimate responsibility of investigation of issues and debate lies with MNAs.​

The High Court Rules that:

As the Constitution stands, the Speaker has every right to limit and encourage debate as he sees condusive, including enforcing or limiting the participation of any given author within the limits of his power; his own power being limited by the approval of the Assembly, and the rules of the Assembly. In this way, the legislative branch controls its own destiny. Where the President may submit legislation, it is the responsibility of the Speaker or the designated review comittee to interact with the President, as information is warranted. The High Court would recommend that the President work in advance of submission with MNAs, and the Speaker so that the proper intention is conveyed, in addition to any statement he addresses the assembly with when presenting the bill. Of course, any MNA may formally request the President to answer on the Assembly floor, when allowed by the Speaker, and as always in our free society, informally off the floor.​

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I have yet another urgent matter to settle. Commander Stewart recently approached me on the sudden movement to reduce the National Assembly to 8, or possibly 6 seats. He sites the constitution, which clearly states that the National Assembly consists of 12 members, and that vacant seats should remain vacant either until the party holding the seat can fill it, or until new representatives are elected in the next election. The move to reduce the NA's size therefore appears to be unconstitutional. However, I have heard that the procedure in question is from an older document that may have been adopted along with the Constitution. I do not have extensive knowledge on this matter, though.

Josephus Locke Sergei has also come to me, with a different request on the same subject. The seat distribution that would result if this move were allowed to progress are, Josephus claims, incorrect. He discussed this with the CRO, and gave me this letter, which is signed by the CRO:

Brings forward a letter

Thus, the correct numbers, based on the elections results, are

ESRP: 1.6299
DA/CRP: 2.5183
ENP: 1.0371
CC: 2.0741
ETE: 0.7406

Seat distribution would be as follows:

ESRP: 2
DA/CRP: 2
ENP: 1
CC: 2
ETE: 1

Considering that the ETE has been dissolved since the elections, one could conceivably argue in the High Court that their votes need to be discounted as well, in which case the numbers would be adjusted as follows:

ESRP: 1.7962
DA/CRP: 2.7752
ENP: 1.1429
CC: 2.2857

This would result in the following seat distribution:

ESRP: 2
DA/CRP: 3
ENP: 1
CC: 2

Sincerely,
Yvette Montand
CRO

If your Honor decides to allow the reduction of the assembly, I believe it should be done with the seat distribution agreed upon by Josephus and the CRO.

John O'Floinn

 

[unmerged(1522)]

*Judge Dravidasthas is temporarily inconvenienced, so the High Court ruling is handed down by Judge Joseph ("call me Joey") Dredd*



In the matter Stewart vs. Blade! and National Assembly Staff, the Court ruling is as follows:

Whereas the Constitution is the supreme law of Eutopia;

whereas it has been established that the reduction in number of Assembly seats is pursuant on the 1865 "Consolidated Law on Public and Other Spirits, and Uses of Same for Purposes of Restitution and Amendment"; and

whereas said law has been grandfathered into the current Eutopia Constitution by the members of the Constitutional Convention;

therefore this Court finds that the seat reduction is both lawful and constitutional. While the 1865 law cited above would, in the current circumstances, reduce the number of Assembly seats to between six and nine, the Court is satisfied that the Assembly staff exercised reasonable judgment in fixing the number at eight seats; said number is therefore upheld by this Court.



In the matter Sergei vs. National Assembly Staff, the Court ruling is as follows:

Whereas the redistribution of Assembly seats is to be based on the will of the electorate and hence on the last election results;

whereas, according to Eutopia's election law, parties failing to take the five percent threshold are to be disregarded for the distribution of Assembly seats; and

whereas the ETE has been dissolved since the date of the last elections without a legal successor and it, therefore, needs to be similarly disregarded;

therefore this Court finds that the distribution of seats among parties and alliances as of this date is as follows:

ESRP: 2
DA/CRP: 3
ENP: 1
CC: 2.

The seats are to be filled initially by the following individuals:

Mr. Sergei (ESRP)
Mr. Zuba (ESRP)
Mr. Stewart (DA)
Mr. Al'Aeshir (DA)
Mr. von Streusser (CRP)
Mr. Lundgren (ENP)
Mr. Robertsson (CC)
Mr. Nolendorf (CC)

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I have recently been asked by Superior Court Judge Cesar Anton to investigate his removal.

He claims that President Talbott and Minister Vilms were crossing the line by removing him, and that the executive branch should not be able to do that. However, our Constitution states that the MILE is in charge of the justice system. As I have seen no process for removing a Judge, I assume that it is up to the MILE to handle the removal of judges. Though I can't say whether or not it's an 'appropriate' system, I do believe Vilm's actions were legal.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Recently, I have recieved a letter from one Jean de Generes, who is representing Siegfried and Roy de la Vegas. They were joined in a civil union under the terms of the Homosexual Equality Bill. The de la Vegas then submitted a request to adopt a child about six months ago. While they measured favorably on all criteria, they were rejected on the grounds that our adoptive laws allow only married couples to adopt children.

As stated in article three of the homosexual equality bill, civil unions "shall impart the same legal status as marriage (including but not limited to: inheritence, taxation, co-ownership of property, child custody, etc.) upon any couples, regardless of gender, so joined."

This suggests that their civil union gives them rights to all privileges granted to married couples. The bill also states that the recognition of marriage shall be left to religious communities. Given that most religions do not accept the marriage of homosexuals, they (and non-religious individuals) are effectively unable to marry, and therefore unable to adopt children.

Article XXVIII of the Bill of Rights, however, states that no "right or privilege, whether granted publicly or privately, by statute, code, regulation, common law, practice, or other means, shall be denied, abridged, or otherwise altered on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or indicia of those."

Eutopia's adoption laws would therefore be in violation of the Third Amendment of our Constitution.

-John O'Floinn

 

[Blade!]

de la Vegas vs. State​

Based on the recomendations and research of the A.G., the High Court rules that:

Whereas, The Homosexual Equality Bill's third article states that civil unions "shall impart the same legal status as marriage upon any couples, regardless of gender,"[/I

...and whereas, it is also stated that 'the recognition of marriage shall be left to religious communities,' which is a prequisite on adoption procedings, and yet is not always available to those in civil unions,

...and whereas, Article XXVIII of the Bill of Rights states that no "right or privilege, whether granted publicly or privately, by statute, code, regulation, common law, practice, or other means, shall be denied, abridged, or otherwise altered on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or indicia of those."​

This court finds that Eutopia's adoption laws are in violation of Constitutional law by only allowing 'married' couples to adopt,

...and this court finds that relying on certifications and criteria from un-certified non-state entities for Eutopian law is in violation of the Constitution, by bypassing the check on discrimination,

...and thusly the High Court of EUtopia orders all laws to disregard marriage or other union certificates from non-state entities, foreign or domestic, and to accept only certificates of union, or equivalent documentation, from state entities, domestic or recognized foreign.​

​

 

[unmerged(10397)]

MILE Tilly is currently pressing criminal charges against Judge Cesar Anton over the execution of Luis Gonzaga. He believes that certain unanswered questions about judicial immunity and the lawfull application of the death penalty will invariably result in the case being appealed to the High Court. As the case would therefore eventually come to your honor for judgement, the MILE requests that it be presented directly to the High Court.

If your Honor would deny this request, MILE Tilly would ask for clarification on to what extent judicial immunity is available, and the extent to which the death penalty may be legally administered in Eutopia.

 

[Blade!]

MILE Tilly is currently pressing criminal charges against Judge Cesar Anton over the execution of Luis Gonzaga. He believes that certain unanswered questions about judicial immunity and the lawfull application of the death penalty will invariably result in the case being appealed to the High Court. As the case would therefore eventually come to your honor for judgement, the MILE requests that it be presented directly to the High Court.

If your Honor would deny this request, MILE Tilly would ask for clarification on to what extent judicial immunity is available, and the extent to which the death penalty may be legally administered in Eutopia.

Per A.G. the legal type questions seem better addressed to you rather than having legal advice sought from the bench... especially in such vague manner. As for whether the High Court will hear this case... No, due process must be served, testimony put forth, the legal process, etc...

Incidently, have they conducted their peer-review of their intended employment termination/suspension yet?

 

[Blade!]

Justice Dravidasthas

I have recently been requested to determine the legality of the actions taken by the Eutopian miliatary. The request comes from former conscript John Black, who believes the army's defiance of the Commander-in-Chief sets a dangerous precedent.

Per Black has made it clear he doesn't want to know whether the actions of the miliatary were right, but whether they were legal.

If we stick strictly to the Constitution, then it seems to me that the officers were indeed living outside the law.

John O'Floinn
Attorney General

Thank you Per O'Floinn,

This matter must be tabled for a moment. This will be your last week as Attourney General, and I must task you with advertising for applications to the post. If you would accept, the High Court will be submitting your name to the legislature as one of the candidates for the position. You are our cheif choice for the position. The matter above will be settled upon the selection by the legislature of a new A.G. based on our three candidates.

Thank you for your service,

Nom Lezz Fellow
Clerk for the High Court

 

[unmerged(10397)]

It would be a great honor to continue to serve the Court as I have been doing these past four terms. I wholeheartedly accept the Court's nomination.

I have put out a few advertisements for the position in the townhall, and have notified the membership of the EBA. I will renew my efforts.

John O'Floinn
Attorney General

 

[unmerged(33865)]

In order to permit the approval process for Attorney General to proceed, and noticing that other more qualified candidates have not come forward due to the incumbent's outstanding reputation and his alignment with the UP which holds a super-majority in the GA, I hereby submit my application. I have a law degree from the University of Nantes (License niveau (level) 3 in "Droit et sciences politiques".) I have received a crash course in Eutopian law since my arrival here in the process of trying to assert my ancestral claims. I would of course recluse myself from any involvement with my own case.

 

[Blade!]

Thank you Per de Fourgéres ,

Thank you for your interest, please submit this application at the A.G.'s office, where all nominations are being consolidated. The forwarding of nominees to the parliament will occur soon.

Graciously,

Nom Lezz Fellow
Clerk for the High Court


Mod ooc: Only the A.G. is allowed to post in this thread.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

"Your Honor,

I had intended to wait until the current case before the Court had been resolved before bringing up a new issue. However, the case is of such importance that I feel it must be brought up now. Recently, it has been brought to my attention that the banning of the Muslim Hijab is in contradiction to the Constitution. The Eutopian Charter of Rights clearly guarantees every citizen the right to free exercise of religion, free expression in both public and private, and twelve years of education, as per Articles A6, A7, and A10, respsectively. The banning of the Hijab makes it impossible for a practicing Muslim in Nouvell Acquitaine to utilize all of these rights.

Thus, it is my finding that the argument of Pers Sergei and Al-Andalusi is completely valid, and the banning of the Hijab is in direct violation of the Constitution.