Verdict on the Judicial Review on “The Conclave Orders Act”
The Concordat is considered, alongside briefings from Citizens A Mean Old Man and Zuckchiva.
The petitioner submitted the following question in context of the Concordat:
"Much like its ill-fated predecessor, The Conclave Act, The Conclave Orders Act appears to establish Magisterial jurisdiction over the Conclave in a way not explicitly defined by the Concordat. Nowhere in the Concordat is the legislature given the authority to establish definitions for court “Orders”, “verdicts”, “Trial Orders”, the authority to dictate that the court “may only enact these kinds of Orders”, or the authority to demand any of the other restrictions or expectations established by the Act. These things appear to be more appropriately expressed in the SOC, over which the Magisterium has no power, or via constitutional amendment(s), if the Magisterium insists on making enforceable changes to court actions or procedure. I kindly request that the Conclave review the constitutional validity of this law.".
The Conclave rules as follows:
This case presents - again - the question of whether the Conclave Orders Act exceeds the Magisterium’s authority under the Concordat.
I.
The Concordat establishes three co-equal branches of government with separate powers.
Article C, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Conclave, “which shall be the interpreter of this Concordat and the judge and jury of Residents.” This broad grant of judicial authority establishes the Conclave as an independent branch with inherent power to determine its procedures.
The Concordat does, however, place specific limitations on the Conclave’s power to issue Orders.
Article C, Section 4 states:
" 1. The Conclave is empowered to compel an action, reversal, or suspension of action by Order with an indictable penalty for if the Order is not met.
2. Orders can be limited in any way by statutory law.
3. Orders can never conflict with the Concordat.
4. Orders may supersede statutory law, but only when a compelled action or reversal/suspension of such is necessary to maintain the status quo until an on-going trial concludes (upon which the relevant Order shall no longer be enforced)."
The question before us is whether the provisions of the Conclave Orders Act constitute permissible “limitations” on Orders as authorized by Article C, § 4, 2, or otherwise conflict with the Concordat.
II.
While the Concordat allows Orders to be limited in any way (such as their scope, duration, application - limitations adjacent to an order itself) the Act under review goes beyond that.
Instead, it defines what constitutes an Order (Section 2.2)(while the Conclave is the interpreter of this Concordat, not the Magisterium), what constitutes a verdict (Section 2.3), and what constitutes a Trial Order (Section 2.4).
Likewise for Section 3.1 that, by limiting which Orders might exists, goes beyond the mere limiting of orders to prohibiting all orders except a few enumerated ones.
These definitions do not merely limit Orders but fundamentally define the nature of judicial actions in a manner that intrudes upon Article C, § 1, 1 of the Concordat and the Conclave’s inherent authority.
III.
Section 3.2 and 3.2.1. of the Act is particularly problematic. It creates a mechanism whereby the Magisterium can effectively nullify a Conclave Order through a majority confirmation vote. This transforms the constitutional power to “limit Orders” into a power to actively review and veto judicial decisions after they have been issued.
Nowhere does the Concordat grant the Magisterium this type of post-hoc review authority over judicial actions.
IV.
The Magisterium has indeed the power to establish parameters for Conclave Orders under Article C, Section 5 of the Concordat.
The following provisions of the Conclave Orders Act exceed the Magisterium’s constitutional authority:
- Section 2’s definitions of “Order,” “verdict,” and “Trial Order,” which intrude upon the Conclave’s inherent authority to interpret the Concordat and determine the nature of its judicial actions, and for the same reason Section 3.1’s limitation of what Orders may exist.
- Section 3.2’s post-hoc confirmation process, which improperly grants the Magisterium veto power over judicial Orders.
V.
Therefore, the Conclave Orders Act is hereby nullified.
So it is ordered.
Passed by 3 / 3 Voting Arbiters.