[Judicial Review] Public Thread: Request to re-review the Judicial Review “On the limitations of the Provost’s Discretionary Edit Powers”

The Conclave
1

The Conclave at Large announces

A request from Citizen Halleyscomet08 to review a Conclave verdict, with the following questions

  1. The Conclave found that there exists no legislation that defined formatting-related errors. However, Section 11 of the Concordat says that: “Should a spelling, grammar, naming, or formatting (in relation to the rest of the legislation’s format) error exist in the Concordat or statutory law”. Does the Conclave still uphold their ruling that there is nothing defining what constitutes an Error despite this statement occurring in the Concordat?

  2. The Conclave also found that the Provost has no limitations in exercising their right to Discretionary Edits as long as the legal effects of the document remain unchanged. To this, I have two questions: a. Assuming the answer to the first question is no, are there truly no limitations that the Provosts have in regard to their exercising of discretionary edit powers? b. Does formatting truly have no legal effect on legislation, considering the fact that the Magisters whom proposed these laws formatted their proposals that way on purpose?

The following procedures will be followed. The Conclave shall, according to its standing orders, convene to determine whether to confirm this request. If it does so, it shall then deliberate and reach a verdict on the questions raised for review within the time period allocated under the Standing Orders.

2.1.1- Judicial Review of a Law shall take place following its passing, its request by the Delegate, a Magisterial Vote, a Vizier Vote, a citizen with a confirmation vote by the Conclave, or a constitutional challenge by a citizen in a civil trial. A Review shall last no more than 7 days but may be extended 3 days at the request of an Arbiter.

2.1.2- Upon receipt of request, the Viceroy shall initiate public and private threads which outline the bill in its entirety, along with the end-date for the deliberation of the law.
…a. The public thread shall be available for citizens to refer precedent or applicable laws to the Conclave, but subject to censure at the request of any Arbiter.
…b. The private thread shall contain the deliberations of the Conclave and be used to draft verdicts and debate the law.

2.1.3- The Review shall rule on the interpretation or constitutional validity of a law, factoring the Concordat, all applicable statutory laws, precedent of the court, and traditional values of The East Pacific for their deliberations.

2

As an Arbiter, I’d like to ask for clarification on the following points.

  • In the request for (re-)review, it is stated that “The Conclave found that there exists no legislation that defined formatting-related errors.” However, as I read it, this is not exactly what the Conclave wrote. Can you clarify why you (@Halleyscomet08) read the verdict that way?

  • Could you please explain why you think Section 11 as quoted contradicts or challenges the Conclave’s previous verdict?

  • Lastly, I would like to know your opinion on whether reversals should be rare and re-reviews handled with appropriate constraint. Suppose there is an interpretation of Section 11 that explains and supports the Conclave’s previous verdict. Would you still argue that it needs to reverse its decision?

I appreciate your clarifications.