Is HEPA Constitutional? (1 Viewer)

Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
684
Feather
ƒ2,336
Nation
Domais
Region
Lazarus
Article II of the Mandate gives the Delegate the right to impose bans and ejections from Lazarus and this is further supported by Article V of the Mandate that gives the court the power to implore the Delegate to ban or eject someone from Lazarus, but fails to give the court that power themselves. If this interpretation of the Mandate is in the opinion of the court as actuate, is the Hostile Persons and Entities Act, which allows the Assembly (and not the Delegate) at the request of the Council of Lazarene Security or the Delegate to designate a region or person hostile, which denies a person or members of an organisation residency, citizenship and etc. in Lazarus, and doesn't require the Delegates approval, unconstitutional?
 

Atlantica

Proud Lazarene
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
588
Feather
ƒ2,260
Nation
Skadifron
Region
Lazarus
The Court of Lazarus has unanimously agreed to the following, authored by myself:

The Court of Lazarus finds the Hostile Entities and Persons Act constitutional. Nothing in the Mandate or prior precedent explicitly specifies a strict constructionist, literalist reading of the powers of the Delegate, the Assembly, or the Council on Lazarene Security; therefore, the Court of Lazarus finds it reasonable to hold that these institutions hold power derived from the penumbras of the Mandate, especially when any specific power is collectively held by and divided amongst these three institutions.

The Court considers the powers contained under the Hostile Entities and Persons to be collectively held by and divided amongst the Delegate, the Assembly, and the Council on Lazarene Security, because either the Delegate or the Council must propose designation as a Hostile Entity or Person and the Assembly must approve this designation accordingly. However, the Court determines that that the powers contained under the Hostile Entities and Persons Act are primarily held by the Delegate and the Council on Lazarene Security, because only these organizations hold the right to initiate HEPA designation. It therefore falls to the Court to determine whether the powers contained in HEPA are a reasonable extension and penumbra of the powers granted to the Delegate and the Council on Lazarene Security in the Mandate, and the Court finds that this is the case. Sections 4 and 5 of Article II of the Mandate give the Delegate and the Council on Lazarene Security, together, extensive powers to deny citizenship or to eject/ban a nation from Lazarus, albeit with limited oversight from the Assembly - similar to the Hostile Entities and Persons Act. Furthermore, the Court holds that the penumbras and implications of the Council on Lazarene Security's institutional closeness to the Delegacy make it an institutional extension of the office
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top