Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Jun 11, 2020 1:11:58 GMT -5
Petitioner Legonimis has posed the following question:
"Does the Constitution of Spiritus give the Legislature, through either explicit or implied powers, the authority to define, limit, or otherwise regulate the Judiciary of Spiritus with a legislative act, such as the Judiciary Act?"
The Chief Justice presiding as single judge pursuant to section 7 of the Judiciary Act. And I fully appreciate the weirdness of following the Judiciary Act while determining whether there can be a Judiciary Act. That's Spiritus for you.
Petitioner Legonimis is not required, but invited to submit a brief in here expressing his opinion. The Attorney General is likewise invited to express the opinion of the government. As this question materially concerns legislative powers I also invite the Chair Potato to brief his opinion.
Anybody else who is interested in voicing an opinion may submit an amicus curiae brief in the Courtroom Gallery.
I will allow seven (7) days for the submission of briefs, until June 18, 08:00 CEST, and we'll take it from there.
|
|
|
Post by legonimis on Jun 11, 2020 12:38:47 GMT -5
Participatory brief by Legonimis, original petitioner for this advisory opinion, as requested by Rogamark, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
Regarding the original petition, I thank the Chief Justice for recognizing my standing to file for an advisory opinion.
Regarding my expertise in connection with this brief, I must state that I am trained as an educator and a behavioral health practitioner, not as an attorney. However, I have prior professional experience in law libraries and have served Spiritus under previous constitutions as an Associate Justice, Vice President, and Member of the Regional Assembly. I also authored one iteration of our constitution, the Westron Realms of Spiritus.
Regarding the question of the authority of the Legislature to regulate the Judiciary, I simply claim that there is no such authority within the Constitution as it currently stands.
As stated within Section 1 of the Judiciary Amendment, “the judicial powers and duties shall be vested in the Supreme Court of Spiritus. It may interpret this Constitution and any and all laws and regulations of Spiritus except community rules and guidelines issued by the admin team.”
This unequivocally places judicial powers and duties within the Supreme Court and not the Legislature.
While Section 6 of the same amendment states that the Judiciary Act is an essential partner to our First Amendment, the section was repealed and thus is no longer binding or relevant.
Section 1 of the Constitution states that the judicial powers of Spiritus are likewise vested within the citizenry of Spiritus, acting collectively and with a simply majority, which is not the Legislature of Spiritus. This would be the only “check” upon the Supreme Court’s judicial power within the Constitution as it is currently written. However, this leads us into the second question of my petition, of which the Chief Justice has delayed consideration.
Having said this, the Supreme Court is of course able to voluntarily comply with the Judiciary Act as it undoubtedly wishes to maintain a cooperative rather than adversarial relationship with the Legislature. However, the Supreme Court may also wish at some point in time to clarify its position on any potentially improper limitations on its power, such as the non-binding nature of advisory opinions.
Again, I thank the Court for hearing my petition. I also thank my fellow citizens and the members of government for their time in reading this brief and in filing any of their own.
|
|
TimS
•
Citizen
Posts: 219
Likes: 23
|
Post by TimS on Jun 12, 2020 11:16:44 GMT -5
Brief for Spiritus as Amicus Curiae This brief is submitted in response to the Court’s order inviting the Attorney General to express the views of Spiritus. It is the position of the Government that the Legislature can generally regulate the Judiciary through a legislative act. Further, it is the position of the Government that the Judiciary Act is a valid act. As the Judiciary Act is not actually disputed at this time, the Government will not be putting forth a specific argument defending it. In addition, arguments regarding the separation of powers generally will be saved for the second part of this Advisory Request. For now, the Government will offer only a few points. First, the Constitution gives the Judicial Branch “judicial powers and duties.” As defined by the Constitution, these “powers and duties” are to interpret the Constitution and laws of Spiritus and conduct criminal trials and other legal proceedings. Examining sources outside of Spirtus does not go beyond this definition of judicial powers 1. Inherent in this power, the Government believes, is the ability for the Judicial Branch to structure itself in a way that makes hearing and resolving disputes and other proceedings as efficient and fair as possible, but not to the total exclusion of any outside structuring or regulation. In fact, some of this outside regulation can be seen explicitly in the Constitution through the appointment, confirmation, and retention election processes for the Chief Justice, and the recall process for the Magistrates. The Government does not believe that the specific enumeration of these regulations means any other outside regulatory or structuring powers exist. Second, the Constitution gives the Legislative Branch “legislative powers and duties.” These powers are not defined in the Constitution, and the exact extent of these powers may represent an unsettled question that the Government will not speculate at this time. Applying, for now, the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, legislative power is “the power to make laws and to alter them; a legislative body’s exclusive authority to make, amend, and repeal laws.” The Government believes that the Legislature can, through the legislative process, regulate the other branches of Government to some degree so long as it is done in accordance with the Constitution. Since the power of the Judicial Branch to structure and regulate itself does not exclude outside influence and the power of the Legislative Branch to enact laws includes the ability to make laws regulating the other branches, the Government believes it is within the power of the Legislature to enact laws that define, limit, or otherwise regulate the Judiciary in accordance with the Constitution. The Government thanks the Court for its time. Timothy Snyder Attorney General of Spiritus 1 "Judicial power: The authority vested in courts and judges to hear and decide cases and to make binding judgments on them; the power to construe and apply the law when controversies arise over what has been done or not done under it" (Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edition).
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Jun 18, 2020 14:37:07 GMT -5
Advisory Opinion 001 - Regulation of the JudiciaryRogamark, Chief Justice:
First, I would like to thank petitioner Legonimis and Attorney General Toms for their participation.
Petitioner submitted a brief offering the interpretation that the Constitution unequivocally assigns the judicial powers and duties to this Court. The Attorney General concurs, as does the Court. We need not dwell upon article 1 here, as it will be addressed by the full Court in the other pending proceeding. Suffice it to say there is indeed some "linguistic inexactitude" at work here, as Petitioner aptly put it in his other brief. The question currently before me is narrower anyway, and asks about the relationship between judiciary and legislature, specifically if and to what extent the latter is constitutionally empowered to regulate the former.
The First Amendment assigns the "judicial powers and duties" to the Supreme Court. It then goes on to specify in more detail what those powers and duties are: to "interpret this Constitution and any and all laws and regulations of Spiritus except community rules and guidelines issued by the admin team" and "conduct criminal trials, and all other proceedings assigned to it by law. Final decisions of the Supreme Court are binding upon all officials and citizens of Spiritus." (const. I, 1).
These two sentences do two opposing, yet not conflicting things. They empower the Court to engage in statutory and constitutional interpretation, and to deal with criminal matters, and to do so in a binding way.
At the same time, however, they also just as expressly grant a certain amount of regulatory authority to the Legislature, to wit:
- assigning duties additionally to those constitutionally established to the Court (const. I, 1)
- determining in which cases a single judge may sit in judgment, and where a full Court is required (const. I, 4). Note that the Constitution sets a floor as to where a full Court is always required, and allows the Legislature to set stricter requirements
- defining what constitutes a "valid party" with the right to initiate legal proceedings
In light of the above, I concur with the Attorney General that the Legislature may regulate "to some degree so long as it is done in accordance with the Constitution". I likewise concur that the regulatory powers enumerated in the First Amendment are not necessarily exhaustive. The broad constitutional power to legislate finds its limits only in the Constitution itself.
The question is, therefore: where does the Constitution draw those limits? While the separation of powers, or lack thereof, the system of checks and balances, or lack thereof, is also something to be addressed by the full Court, it is clear that the Constitution sets a floor regarding judicial powers, which also serves as a ceiling for cross-branch regulation. Thus, legislation is likely unconstitutional when it limits or obstructs the Court's ability to fulfill its duties, or constricts the Court in a manner that while it ostensibly maintains discretion in the exercise of its constitutional powers, it really has no choice but one because all other avenues are statutorily closed.
Turning to the Judiciary Act with this standard in mind, nothing in there seems to obviously fail this test. Some provisions walk right up to the line, but whether they cross it will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, I must point out that Petitioner is correct with his wise remarks about the Court's discretion to simply choose not to challenge a statutory limitation, even if it may believe it to be constitutionally infirm. In the short period of the Court's existence, there have been two requests for non-binding advisory opinion, and no "actual" cases, seeming to indicate that this Legislature-created proceeding is needed and wanted by the citizenry. The procedural minimum safeguards of the Judiciary Act seem fair, and not so onerous on the Court as to obstruct it. Creating an appeals process for cases of high significance wherein the participation of all three judges is required is a prudent safeguard against error. And the privacy protection mandate is likewise a good idea, as it is not hard to imagine cases where people might be forced to choose between sitting back and enduring an injustice, or seeking justice at the cost of putting up personal and confidential information for everyone to see.
|
|