Advisory Request 004 - Executive Approval of Amendments

[Ltin]

Petitioner Louisistan has asked the court to address the following:

"Whether a law proposing an amendment to the constitution under Section 12 of the Elections Act is subject to Executive Approval or Veto under Section 9 of the Constitution." 

Petitioner Louisistan and the Attorney General are both invited to submit briefs. Any others who wish to may submit an amicus curiae brief in the Courtroom Gallery.

5 days will be allowed to submit briefs, till October 21 at 15:00 GMT.

[Louisistan]

Petitioner's Brief on Advisory Request 004

I wish to extend my gratitude to the Court for granting my request for an Advisory Opinion. I would like to clarify that I do not seek this opinion purely out of academic interest. As Chair Potato, I feel bound not only by law and rules of procedure, but also - to an extent - by tradition. However, now the two of them seem to conflict - as I am about to demonstrate. This puts the Chair Potato in a difficult position and I ask the court for direction.

Traditionally, the Legislature passes a bill to amend the constitution, which is then put to a referendum by the Chair Potato. To my knowledge, no constitutional amendment has ever been presented to the Chief Executive for approval or veto.

As for the law, curiously enough, the process for amending the constitution is itself not described in the constitution, rather in the Elections Act, which states in Sections 12 and 13.

12. The Legislature may propose a constitutional amendment by passing a law proposing the amendment and invoking this provision.

13. The Chairpotato of the Legislature must put such a proposed amendment to a vote by the citizens of Spiritus assembled as soon as feasible. The provisions about elections shall apply unless otherwise provided.

Section 12 is very explicit in stating that the Legislature passes a law to propose an amendment, meaning that the proposal to amend is a law in it's own right - although it has no effect other than triggering a referendum. Section 9 of the constitution requires all laws passed by the Legislature to be presented to the Chief Executive for executive approval or veto:

9. All legislation passed by the Legislature must be formally presented to the Chief Executive who may veto it within one week. After reconsideration in light of the Chief Executive's objections the Legislature may override the veto with a supermajority.

Nothing in the text of either the Constitution or the Elections Act makes any sort of special provision for laws under Section 12. It is therefore my conclusion that such a law must be presented to the Chief Executive for approval or veto before the referendum. Otherwise, it would not become law.

There is an abstract argument to be made, that the citizens, holding executive powers under Section 1 of the constitution could be able to overrule the Chief Executive. However, there is no process in place to do so and I don't believe there is law or precedent to suppport that argument. Section 9 specifically calls for the Chief Executive to decide on whether to veto a bill, not any other holder of executive power.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that if my conclusion is correct, the Chief Executive holds a lot more power than previously thought. Barring a succesful override vote of the Legislature, the Chief Executive would be able to prevent a constitutional amendment from reaching the referendum, depriving the citizens of their decision. The desirablity of this state of affairs is not a matter for the court, but rather one to be debated by the Legislature and the citizenry at large.

In conclusion, I believe that a law proposing an amendment to the constitution under Section 12 of the Elections Act is indeed subject to Executive Approval or Veto under Section 9 of the Constitution. The traditional process wherein the Chair Potato puts the amendment to referendum without Executive approval is in violation of the Elections Act.

I look forward to the court's opinion and will abide by that opinion going forward.

[TimS]

Brief for Spiritus as Amicus Curiae

At this time, the Government wishes only to provide a small vocabulary discussion to help the Court in its deliberations. The two words that seem to be most important here are "legislation" in section 9 of the Constitution and "law" in section 12 of the Elections Act. Legislation, taken right from the definition in Black's Law Dictionary, is:

1. The process of making or enacting a positive law in written form, according to some type of formal procedure, by a branch of government constituted to perform this process. — Also termed lawmaking; statute-making. 2. The law so enacted; collectively, the formal utterances of the legislative organs of government. 3. The whole body of enacted laws.

Looking up the definition of "Law" in a law dictionary produces a very large definition that we do not believe needs to be copied here, but it seems clear enough that law and legislation are linked. Close enough that it seems, logically, that any "law" passed by the Legislature counts as "legislation" that must be "formally presented to the Chief Executive." The Government believes it is particularly notable that the Elections Act specifically names the instrument proposing the Constitutional Amendment a "law" with no other qualifiers as opposed to, for example, a resolution.

The Government thanks the Court for its time.

Timothy Snyder
Attorney General of Spiritus

[Ltin]

Advisory Opinion 004 - Executive Approval of Amendments

Ltin, Magistrate Judge:

I would like to thank Petitioner Louisistan and the Attorney General for their participation.

The petitioner is correct that no constitutional amendments have been presented to the Chief Executive for their approval. However, it should be noted that since the passage of the Elections Act, the constitution has been amended three times. First to change the dates of elections, then to create the title of Fry at the Bottom of the Bag, and then to create this very court.

The petitioner and Attorney general both argue that since the Elections Act act requires constitutional amendments to be passed as laws, and all laws passed by the Legislature must be formally presented to the Chief Executive for approval, that proposed constitutional amendments must be presented to the Chief Executive for approval. As noted by Louisistan, the relevant sections of the Elections Act are the following:

12. The Legislature may propose a constitutional amendment by passing a law proposing the amendment and invoking this provision.

13. The Chairpotato of the Legislature must put such a proposed amendment to a vote by the citizens of Spiritus assembled as soon as feasible. The provisions about elections shall apply unless otherwise provided.

Since it is the law itself which serves as the proposal, the requirement for any proposed amendment to be put to a vote does not apply until the law is approved by the Chief Executive. Thus, I agree that any constitutional amendments must be presented to the Chief Executive before being put to a referendum.

At first glance that may potentially place the status of the previously passed amendments to the constitution in question, since they were never formally presented to the Chief Executive. However, I'm not going to comment on that matter at this time. It is beyond the scope of the question at hand, and better left for the full court anyway.