[JR] WTF is a Civil Trial 🦅

Eastern Alksearia Fountain Plaza The Conclave
1

|Request for Judicial Review| | | |

| — | — | — | — |

| LAW IN QUESTION | -Concordat Article E, Section 4, Clause 2 -|||

|LEGAL QUESTIONS OR CHALLENGES| -E.4.2 reads “Any Resident may appeal to the Conclave via trial on any government action taken against them.” My questions are as follows:

1.. Is this contingent on Article C, Section 4, Clause 1-2? Those clauses rule that Conclave may nullify actions of the other three branches which are contrary to the Concordat or statutory law. In other words, can residents only appeal actions based on their legality, or is it truly just any action against them?

2.. If it truly is any action against them, as it seems to imply on its own, what is the basis for this trial, which we’ve dubbed Civil Trials? Is it about weighing the state interest of an action with the harm done? Is it about whether or not it is equally applied to the residents of TEP?

3.. If a law explicitly stated that civil trials could be pursued for any action against someone on the basis of harm done balanced against state benefit, would that be constitutional? In other words, if a law clarifies a vague provision of the Concordat, is that interpretation as binding as if it was in the Concordat? -|||

| | |REVIEW ADVANCED BY- (indicate with "X ") |-Aivintis-

| | |…Delegate|()|

| | |…Magisterium|()|

| | | …Other Party (Citizen)|(X)|

2

The conclave has voted to accept this JR. There are ongoing deliberations going on in the background for it now

3

I have the following observations on this.

Article E.4.2 states that “any Resident may appeal to the Conclave via trial on any government action taken against them.” The review asks whether this right operates independently of Article C.4’s limitation to actions “contrary to this Concordat or statutory law.”

Article C.4 establishes the Conclave’s judicial powers. We may “rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Praesidium and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law.” We may also nullify Magisterium laws “contrary to this Concordat.” These provisions define what we can actually do when government action is challenged.

Article E.4.2 must be read within this framework. The phrase “any government action” establishes a procedural right - residents may bring challenges. But this procedural right cannot expand our substantive powers beyond those granted in Article C.4. We cannot nullify legal government action, regardless of how unwise it might appear.

The Concordat establishes that the Magisterium makes policy through democratic process, the Delegate implements that policy, and the Conclave ensures both stay within legal bounds. Article E.4.2 preserves this structure by granting broad appeal rights within constitutional limits.

The Magisterium may enact legislation clarifying procedures for civil trials under Article E.4.2, provided such legislation respects our constitutional powers.

4

My counter, for the Conclave’s consideration, is that ruling on and nullifying illegal or unconstitutional actions is the path of a judicial review, made clear through the Standing Orders of the Conclave. Even so, the SOC set apart civil trials. Civil trials in the SOC are not defined, either. My question, for Conclave’s consideration, is that, if residents challenging “any government action against them” can only be made on illegal or unconstitutional grounds, why was it put in the rights and duties article and not in the Conclave article? Why the physical separation of judicial review and citizen challenges in the Concordat? Why the definitional separation of judicial review and civil trials in the SOC? What is, therefore, a civil trial? And most importantly, if it is as Bachtendekuppen says, and the clause in question is just saying who can bring judicial reviews, then does that mean that the bringers of judicial reviews need standing, since the clause specifies that it is only actions “against them” that one can challenge?

One explanation is that Bachtendekuppen is correct in his assessment which, on its own, does make legal sense, but then, as a result, our SOC and legal tradition makes an unnecessary and illogical distinction between civil trials and judicial reviews with no legal effect, and many of our past judicial reviews are rendered invalid due to a lack of standing. Our past civil trials have been about standing based on the harm done against a resident. Our past judicial reviews have been about illegality or unconstitutionality with no standing component. The clause in question necessitates standing. All of our law and legal precedent sets apart civil trials with standing and judicial reviews without standing. If it is as Bach says, and the clause in question is only about judicial reviews, not only does it call in question our law and legal precedent, it creates an illogical hole in it – what, therefore, are civil trials?

One of my questions here today is that, if there is a vagueness in the Concordat, can the law clarify it? Whether or not the Conclave rules that currently, Bach’s interpretation is correct, I urge them to consider this particular question with closeness. If we pass a law today that explains away these illogical holes and lay to rest the legal implications against past Judicial Reviews and the standing SOC, in such a way that may reinterpret a vague section of the Concordat to serve the interests of our people and government more effectively, is that valid because of the ambiguity and uncertainty, or invalid because of the other determinations of this court in this review?

This is a legal question that can have a prominent effect on our legal system, more than most seen in recent times. I therefore urge deep consideration of the points and questions I have raised today, to ensure that any legal ruling is measured in its legal effects and implications.

5

I actually intended to post the previous in Closed Chambers, but I appreciate the feedback. I conclude we should make it more of a habit to ask follow-up questions in a review like this, I think your response is very useful.

1 Like
6

I have some follow-up questions, if you (and the Viceroy) don’t mind.

The SOC does not define a judicial review to be this broad, does it (2.1.a SOC)?

Why would they be invalid? Are you suggesting that ruling a certain way in this JR would undo all others before it? I’m assuming a Concrisis-like verdict isn’t a wise thing to do?

I don’t think I said that it was only about “judicial reviews”? How do you get there?

7

2.5 is where I’m inferring this – “The Review shall rule on the interpretation or constitutional validity of a law (or interpretation of the Concordat itself), factoring the Concordat, all applicable statutory laws, precedent of the court, and traditional values of The East Pacific for their deliberations.”

Combined with C.4.1 of the Concordat: “The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Praesidium and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law.”

Potentially – my thought is that if the clause is specifying WHO can bring Judicial Review claims, and not WHAT other claims people can bring, then the nasty operative phrase is “action taken against them.” Under this interpretation, if a Judicial Review is made without the challenged action being taken “against [the requestor]” (i.e. if the one filing for review has not been harmed by the action being reviewed) then it is invalid, and so therefore is the ruling.

Challenging an action or law on its legality or constitutionality – just taking its dictionary definition and not necessarily considering any legal definition. I suppose my question to you would be what else? If the answer is civil trials, then what are they?

In the meantime, I’d like to highlight another phrasing component – “Any Resident may appeal […] via trial”. If trials are distinct from judicial reviews, as the SOC sets says, then this clause cannot apply to judicial reviews and can only apply to criminal or civil trials. Given criminal trials explicitly involve breaking the law and civil trials don’t, yet civil trials explicitly involve standing, as set forth by precedent, I see the following distinction as taking place:

  • Judicial Review – action taken contrary to the Concordat
  • Civil Trial – action taken against the petitioner
  • Criminal Trial – action taken contrary to the law

Bringing me back to the question: If I made that distinction explicit in law, would the lack of an explicit contradiction in the Concordat (given our conversation has been centered around implicit meanings) permit the establishment of this principle? This question, I believe, is above all the rest, and brings into consideration the extent of the legal principle of statute taking priority over legal precedent.

In other words, if a Judicial Review says an action is against the Concordat, and a law is created to say that action is permitted by the Concordat, without an explicit ban on that action by the Concordat, is it the Judicial Review or the Concordat which is making that determination? Because the answer to that question changes the order of priority for the conflicting interpretations.

8

It’s been two weeks since the last update and a month overall. At what stage is the Conclave currently in?

Important legislation hinges on the results of this JR.

9