[JUDICIAL REVIEW] Questions on Conclave Power Pertaining to Nullification of Concordat Amendments

The Conclave
1

[th]REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW[/th]

LAW IN QUESTION

(The Concordat, 2019 and 2022)

LEGAL QUESTIONS
OR CHALLENGES

  1. Does the Conclave have the authority to strike non binding amendment proposals by the Magisterium?
  2. If not, does the Conclave have the authority to strike binding amendment referendums by the citizenry?

REVIEW ADVANCED BY-
(indicate with “X”)
-Applicant Name-

…Delegate
( )

…Magisterium
( )

…Other Party
(please indicate which)
(X) VIZIER/CITIZEN

2

Good morning and may it yet again please this esteemed court,

We come here today to ask two essential questions of this Conclave in regards to the powers of this court:

  1. Does the Conclave have the authority to strike non binding amendment proposals by the Magisterium?
  2. If not, does the Conclave have the authority to strike binding amendment referendums by the citizenry?

This all stems from the Court’s recent decision to rule that the proposed amendment of the Concordat, which “struck and replaced” the concordat before it, by the Magisterium. This court held that as the Concordat does not expressly have an operational clause allowing to repeal and replace the document by amendment, it was unlawful. However, this brings up the two above questions.

As the July of 2019 Concordat is now the law of the land, Petitioner will be citing it for reasons of demonstration.

First, to establish the power of Judicial Review for this conclave:
Article C, Section 5:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 5) The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or laws passed by the Magisterium and nullify and prohibit any which are contrary to this Concordat.

— End quote

This places two operational scenarios in which this high court has the power of judicial review:

  • Actions of the Delegate, such as executive orders.

  • Laws passed by the Magisterium.

While the court cites the ability to rule on laws passed by the Magisterium, the important constitutional context is proposed amendments to the Concordat physically cannot be laws.

Citing the actual language of the text,
Section 3) The Magisterium shall have the authority to propose an amendment to this Concordat by a 2/3 vote; such an amendment must receive the support of 3/4 of those Citizens voting in a referendum administered by the Conclave.

The text “Propose an amendment” is obvious; a proposal. It is not binding. Therefor, it cannot be a law. For the Conclave to rule otherwise is in effect making these proposals binding legislation, which they never can be.

Citing the actual Amendment that the court has ruled unlawful, the Magisterium of the time was keenly aware of this:

The Provost at the time, Bachtendekuppen, was well aware the Magisterium was passing a proposed amendment, not a law. It was stated as such multiple times in the Magisterial chambers.


We also have the actual referendum in records, citing:

In it, the Viceroy, Zukchiva acknowledges the referendum passes the amendment, key phrase passing by referendum, thus, not the Magisterium.


With these in mind, we can conclude a few key facts:

  • Both the Concordat, and the actors at the time of passing this amendment, including the Provost and Viceroy, were well aware that this, as with prior amendments, is only a proposed amendment when it passes the Magisterium. It has no binding force, it has no legal standing. It means nothing except to schedule a referendum.

  • By this metric, it cannot be a “Law of the Magisterium” that this Conclave has jurisdiction to rule on.

  • Accepting this, the answer to “Question 1” should be a resounding “No, the Conclave cannot overturn proposed amendments passed by the Magisterium.”

  • This simply leaves “Question 2”, and it is Petitioner’s opinion that nothing in any version of the Concordat gives the Conclave the operational or legal precedent to strike down actual referendums passed by the population. Particularly not this one which passed with 100% of the vote.

Petitioner hereby requests the following:

  • Petitioner formally requests a re-review of the original Judicial Review.

  • Petitioner believes enough cause exists at first glance to cast doubt on the Court’s prior opinion as to formally request the Court injunct its prior ruling from taking effect until such a time as these questions are properly answered by the Court.

Thank you.

3

I am uncertain if a re-review will be beneficial for the overall health of the community. For now, I will allow this thread and related threads connected to it… to remain open.

4

After 7 days of discussion, the Conclave at Large was unable to achieve a majority opinion. This JR is hereby closed.