[Judicial Review] Question on the Concordat

The Conclave
1


The Conclave hereby announces…
A request from Citizen Zukchiva Yura to review the Amendments for the Concordat passed in 2019.

LAW IN QUESTION: The Concordat

QUESTIONS:

  1. In February 2019, the Magisterium & Citizenry passed a Concordat re-write which stated in part: “Section 1) This Concordat recognizes itself as the descendant of the first concordat of The East Pacific, which took effect following a ratification vote of nations of The East Pacific, as overseen by the Elders. This Concordat repeals and replaces said elder concordat.” Would this have made the February 2019 Concordat a repeal and replace of the previous iteration of the Concordat, or is this an amendment to the previous iteration?

  2. If it was a repeal and replace, considering the pre-Feb. 2019 Concordat had no mechanism for a repeal and replace, would this make all following iterations of the Concordat illegal? If so, will the Conclave strike them down (does it even have the power to)? What about all our laws passed since that time?

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.

— Begin quote from ____

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.

2.1.4- Draft verdicts are prepared by Arbiters, listing reasoning and legal references to be voted upon.
…a. For the first vote, a draft verdict may only pass by unanimity.
…b. If the vote fails, consequent votes shall be held until a draft verdict receives majority support.
…c. The dissenting minority of Arbiters may choose to file a minority report of their verdict to be appended to the majority verdict.

2.1.5- The majority verdict of a Judicial Review shall take full force of law and shall form precedence for that and similar laws. The verdict may rule on including, but not limited to: constitutionality, applicability, meaning, or validity as a law.

— End quote

2

The Conclave has voted to accept the Judical Review

3

I’d like to bring the following cases in more detail for the Conclave’s purview. I understand that these are not necessarily precedent under our current form of government, but these circumstances play a role in our legal history and I feel should be considered.

In this case, what I wish to bring up is the principle of popular sovereignty. This is more than an abstract principle, but also a legal precedent that has existed throughout the East Pacific’s history. Per Merriam-Webster, popular sovereignty is described as the following: “a doctrine in political theory that government is created by and subject to the will of the people”.

This principle has been exercised a multitude of times in our legal history, as follows:

In early 2004, Delegate One Infinite Loop instituted https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_east_pacific/articles-of-confederation-t12795.html - establishing popular sovereignty as a legal principle of East Pacifican governance through the establishment of a democratic government with substantial involvement by general citizens. Before hand, popular sovereignty did indeed exist - but primarily in endorsements and without having much legal precedent.

In late 2004, https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_east_pacific/charter-adoption-t12831.html, despite the Articles of Confederation having no capabilities to repeal itself. In this time, the citizens of the East Pacific exercised their popular sovereignty to select a new constitution and a new form of government. Interestingly, they did so via the Articles themselves, similar to how we utilized Elder Concordat-established institutions to establish the New Concordat.

In 2008, the citizenry of the East Pacific yet again decided to exercise their popular sovereignty when, Proposed divisions of Government - Page 2 - The East Pacific - Tapatalk, they suspended the Charter in favor of the Elder government.

In 2009, the citizenry of the East Pacific gathered together to vote into power Ratification - The East Pacific - Tapatalk, a constitution which would suspend the Elder government. Although in this case the move was done with the Elder’s consent - and therefore done legally - this still represents a strong example of popular sovereignty.

With this, a legal history becomes clear - that since the days of Loop, it has always been up to the citizens to determine their mode of governance, regardless of whether the law itself gave the citizens that ability or not. And indeed, when there was little option left, the citizens exercised their will to choose such governance.

I’d also argue that this principle is recognized by the Concordat, as the current Concordat recognizes the previous Concordat by stating “Section 1) This Concordat recognizes itself as the descendant of the first concordat of The East Pacific, which took effect following a ratification vote of nations of The East Pacific, as overseen by the Elders. This Concordat repeals and replaces said elder concordat.” - and the previous Concordat itself recognizes the legitimacy of the Elders by giving the Elders powers to oversee ratification and the first Delegate elections. Things an illegitimate entity would never be trusted with. In short, by its own nature of recognition of its legal ancestry, it is arguable that the current Concordat’s enactment via a repeal and replace may very well be legal, as it follows a principle the Concordat implicitly endorses.

4

Note: My question was about the Concordat amendment in Feb. 2020, as that’s the amendment I was linking to. Said Feb. 2019 by accident - my bad.

5

Rhilanon, Christie Island
Outside the Conclave

It has been nearly 2 months. Viceroy Shadow, Viceroy Designee Nociav, Arbiter Wallenburg, and Arbiter Halleyscomet have finally emerged from a Closed Chambers discussion on a Judicial Review. Exhaustion is written all over their faces. They all look as if they have experienced 3 World Wars, 2 Great Depressions, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree. Verdict in hand, Viceroy Shadow steps up to the Microphone.

“Citizens of the Confederated East Pacific, A verdict has been reached.” They announce, “I will now read the verdict.”

A silence fills the air, the tensions mounting on this Judicial Review has reached it’s climax. The end is nigh! Finally!

“Novus Pontifex creatus est”

The assembled crowd looks like Shadow has gone mad. Maybe they have. Maybe they have.

“Oh, apologies, this is not the right script. Ah, here it is.”

— Begin quote from ____


On the Issue of The Concordat, The Conclave at Large has approved by a 2/3rds majority,

This request draws attention to two distinct possible governments of The East Pacific: one operating under the May 2022 Concordat and one operating under the July 2019 Concordat, which is the most recent version prior to the February 2020 amendment. When the February 2020 amendment to the Concordat was passed by a referendum, it explicitly claimed to “repeal and replace” the Concordat before it. This action would immediately dissolve the government under the July 2019 Concordat and replace it with a new “descendant” government. Notably, there is no legal procedure for repealing the Concordat, rendering any such action illegal.

Addressing this request has brought to Conclave’s attention an appeal to superlegal principles concerning the social contract of The East Pacific. Conclave finds that this social contract does not permit illegal government actions simply on the basis that several Citizens will assent to those actions. The social contract demands rule of law, rather than acquiescence to the popular will. Therefore, the February 2020 amendment cannot derive legitimacy from that popular will. Conclave also finds that this social contract does not permit any government organ to act on behalf of any other government organ. Therefore, no single government organ can consent to the dissolution of the entire government on behalf of other government organs, and the February 2020 amendment cannot derive legitimacy from the consent of Magisterium, as no other government organs joined Magisterium in approving the amendment. Without any apparent legitimacy, we must find the February 2020 amendment illegitimate.

  1. In February 2020, the Magisterium & Citizenry passed a Concordat re-write which stated in part: “Section 1) This Concordat recognizes itself as the descendant of the first concordat of The East Pacific, which took effect following a ratification vote of nations of The East Pacific, as overseen by the Elders. This Concordat repeals and replaces said elder concordat.” Would this have made the February 2020 Concordat a repeal and replace of the previous iteration of the Concordat, or is this an amendment to the previous iteration?

The February 2020 Concordat was introduced, passed, and ratified through the amendment process. However, it is not actually a legitimate amendment. It also neither repeals nor replaces the July 2019 Concordat, being illegitimate and therefore inactive.

  1. If it was a repeal and replace, considering the pre-Feb. 2020 Concordat had no mechanism for a repeal and replace, would this make all following iterations of the Concordat illegal? If so, will the Conclave strike them down (does it even have the power to)? What about all our laws passed since that time?

The language repealing the July 2019 Concordat is illegal. Since this language persists in all subsequent amendments, we need no further argument to acknowledge all subsequent amendments as illegal and illegitimate. This means that the July 2019 Concordat remains the legitimate Concordat under which the government exists. All government actions and laws which violate this Concordat are also illegal. This does not immediately render all government offices and officials illegitimate, however. Where officials are duly installed within the stipulations of the July 2019 Concordat they remain legitimate. For instance, Delegates elected after the February 2020 amendment may be legitimate up until October 2021, when Delegates were first elected under the current system of universal citizenship due to a Concordat amendment. Arbiters, similarly, remained legitimate until nominated by an illegitimate Delegate or confirmed by an illegitimate Magisterium. Therefore, Arbiters Eastern Alksearia, Nociav, and Wallenburg remain members of a legitimate Conclave, being installed to Conclave in a manner consistent with the July 2019 Concordat. This Conclave has the authority to acknowledge the July 2019 Concordat as the legitimate Concordat, and to carry out all other duties given to it under that Concordat, including to strike illegal laws.

— End quote

A dissenting opinion will be published at a later time. For now, the Verdict has been reached. So it is said, so it is done.

6

— Begin quote from ____


OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VICEROY

Nearly 24 hours ago, the Conclave at large released one of the most controversial decisions of our time (Judicial Review: Question on the Concordat). Now, I am here to announce, using my powers as Viceroy, that this decision is overturned.

There are several factors at play here. First and foremost, we must look at the Standing Orders of the Conclave (SOC). The SOC specifically specifies in 2.1.1 the following

“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. “

The SOC is very clear here. At most, a Judicial Review is supposed to take 10 days maximum. The Judicial Review lasted 23 days. And unless Common Core Math changed something I don’t know, 23 is greater than 10. This egregious breach of procedure cannot be overlooked. If this was a Citizen’s referendum, it would be overturned on the basis of impropriety. If the Magisterium skipped a step, or allowed someone to motion a bill to vote who wasn’t a magister (or a legal person to do so), it would be overturned. The Conclave should not be exempt from such a treatment. In addition, it is my fault for not reading Section 2.1.1 properly. I accept full responsibility for it.

All government officials, treaties, laws, everything is back in place.

— End quote

7

This thread is now locked