Request for Review

Welcome to the forums of the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features

Pages:
1
2
3

Request for Review; Constitutionality of Pre-Constitutional Treaties
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 13 2015, 08:31 AM (561 Views)
Cormac	Jul 13 2015, 08:31 AM Post #1
Lazarene Posts: 398 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Chaotic Neutral Military Stance Raider Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Cormactopia II Skype cormac.ns Discord Cormac#9408	Honorable Judges of the Grand Court: I am petitioning the Court for a constitutionality review of treaties carried over from the People's Republic of Lazarus. Article III, 3 of the Constitution specifies that "[t]he Grand Assembly may ratify or repeal treaties with foreign powers negotiated by the executive by a simple majority vote, unless the treaty specifies its method of termination." In the case of the FRA Charter, as well as all other treaties excepting the Bethany Accords and the Lazarus-Osiris Non-Aggression Pact, the Assembly has not ratified these treaties. They were instead continued from the People's Republic of Lazarus, ratified by the elected, representative People's Congress established by Mandate 8. The Constitution makes no provision for the continuation of treaties from the People's Republic of Lazarus, and in fact no mention of the PRL, previous laws, previous treaties, or previous governments at all. My questions for review are therefore as follows: 1. Is it constitutional for treaties to be carried over from the People's Republic of Lazarus without a ratification vote in the Assembly? 2. Are the treaties listed as "active treaties" that have not been subject to a ratification vote in the Assembly currently in force? I thank the Grand Court for its time. Edited by Cormac, Jul 13 2015, 08:33 AM.

Replies:
Amerion	Jul 24 2015, 07:12 AM Post #11
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	Respectfully, is there an update on this query?



Belschaft	Jul 24 2015, 10:35 AM Post #12
Supreme Executive Chief Justice for Life Posts: 338 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Apr 12, 2015	I'm just waiting to here back from Pow, and after that we should be ready to issue our ruling.



Amerion	Jul 24 2015, 11:16 AM Post #13
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	Thank you



Belschaft	Jul 25 2015, 06:25 PM Post #14
Supreme Executive Chief Justice for Life Posts: 338 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Apr 12, 2015	The Court, having considered the legal question presented before us by Cormac in regards to the constitutionality of treaties inherited from prior-governments of Lazarus, has come to the following conclusion: The Republic of Lazarus has clearly and unambiguously established itself as the legal successor to the Peoples Republic both de-jue and de-facto; de-jure by proclaiming such in the Constitution, and de-facto by establishing itself as the uncontested sovereign power of Lazarus. In doing so The Republic of Lazarus legally assumed the diplomatic rights, responsibilities and duties of it's predecessor, and as such we believe it inherited the existing treaties of The Peoples Republic. However, unlike The Peoples Republic, The Republic of Lazarus is a democratic government and requires the ratification of treaties by the Assembly for them to be considered binding. No equivalent democratic process existed under the Peoples Republic, and as such treaties established under it cannot be considered binding at this time; for these treaties to become binding they must now receive democratic ratification as mandated by the Constitution. Treaties predating the Peoples Republic, that received comparable ratification via an equivalent democratic process, remain in force. As such, The Court recommends that all treaties established under The Peoples Republic be brought immediately before The Assembly for ratification. - Justice Belschaft - Justice Powthran



Funkadelia	Jul 26 2015, 06:06 AM Post #15
Posts: 2,155 Group: King of the Undead Member #86 Joined: Apr 22, 2015 Alignment Chaotic Neutral Military Stance Raider Political Views Socialist Nation in Lazarus Funkadelia	This creates nothing but an absolute waste of time but if people really want to piss around and force through seven votes at once, it's not really my choice.



Amerion	Jul 26 2015, 07:13 AM Post #16
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	The Court's recommendation is duly noted.



Belschaft	Jul 26 2015, 07:42 AM Post #17
Supreme Executive Chief Justice for Life Posts: 338 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Apr 12, 2015	Funkadelia Jul 26 2015, 06:06 AM This creates nothing but an absolute waste of time but if people really want to piss around and force through seven votes at once, it's not really my choice. The purpose of the court is not to determine what is most expedient, but what is lawful. We determined that the constitutional requirement for treaty ratification via a democratic process required that all inherited treaties that did not undergo an equivalent process needed to receive it. I am sorry if that is inconvenient, but I believe it to be what the law requires.



Constie	Jul 26 2015, 08:01 PM Post #18
Chief Justice Emeritus of the Grand Court Posts: 830 Group: Accused Member #132 Joined: Apr 28, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	Funkadelia Jul 26 2015, 06:06 AM This creates nothing but an absolute waste of time but if people really want to piss around and force through seven votes at once, it's not really my choice. Don't get butt hurt over it, this represents change, in letting the citizen decide who they want to ally with



Cormac	Jul 27 2015, 01:09 AM Post #19
Lazarene Posts: 398 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Apr 8, 2015 Alignment Chaotic Neutral Military Stance Raider Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Cormactopia II Skype cormac.ns Discord Cormac#9408	Constie Jul 26 2015, 08:01 PM Don't get butt hurt over it, this represents change, in letting the citizen decide who they want to ally with It appears, for some people, that the drive for change was lip service aimed at looking better than the NPO, and not a real desire for change. Fortunately, the Constitution is forcing change even if the Delegate would prefer reversion to the old system of doing things, in which everyone just does what he says. I thank the Court for considering this matter and for this ruling.



Belschaft	Jul 27 2015, 01:23 AM Post #20
Supreme Executive Chief Justice for Life Posts: 338 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: Apr 12, 2015	Please try and keep some level of decorum in the court Constie and Cormac. If you have a genuine complaint against the Delegate feel free to make it, but don't snipe at Funk here.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Free Forums with no limits on posts or members. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Court Archive · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3