Ruling [Question] Any person language.

[Domais]

First off I would like to state that I know the court is sort a member so if they cannot come to a decision on this question I am fine with them deferring to a latter date. I just ask that they inform me about that.

The criminal code uses "Any person" when defining crimes, so does this language include people who are non-residents of Lazarus at the time the crime was committed, and therefore not under the jurisdiction Lazarus? That is to say, can non-residents be charged with crimes in Lazarus?

Thanks,
-Dom.

 

[Domais]

Bump

 

[Frankender]

can anyone from the court acknowledge you have seen this request please

 

[New Rogernomics]

There is no way to make a ruling/decide to take up a ruling on a constitutional matter till at least two justices are appointed and confirmed. When the vote closes I am sure they'll be able to see this.

As mentioned in the mandate:

(4) The Court has the power, upon being petitioned by a citizen, to strike down any general law, treaty, or policy. in whole or in part, and restrain any government action, by two-thirds vote, if such violates this Mandate or any constitutional law.

(5) The Court may, upon being petitioned by a citizen, reconcile contradictions within and between this Mandate and constitutional laws, as well as contradictions within and between general laws, by two-thirds vote, maintaining minimal disruption to the intended purposes of the contradictory provisions.

 

[Ryccia]

The Court has taken notice of this question, and has decided to take it under consideration. A ruling shall be issued in due course. Amicus briefs from the public are welcome.

 

[Wymondham]

The following is the unanimous opnion of the Court, authored by Justice Wymondham.

Each section of our criminal codes states that 'any person' who performs a certain action is guilty of a given crime.

The question laid before this court is whether 'any person' includes those who are not residents of Lazarus.

As there is no precedent, statutory guidance or legislative history able to guide the court, we must choose between relying the plain language of the statue in question or whether to construct a standard of 'jurisdiction' for the region's laws.

We prefer the latter course. While it may be tempting to rely on the plain language of the statue and interpret the phrase 'any person' to grant universal jurisdiction due to the commonly understood meaning of the word 'any' a degree of sensibleness must enter this ruling and forestall such a hasty conclusion.

Mandate 12 governs the workings of Lazarus, not the workings of all NationStates. The preamble makes clear that it is the 'functional law by which Lazarus is governed ' and it's applicability to Lazarus is threaded through the document, no other region or institution is afforded similar mention. Article V of the constitution is entitled the 'Court of Lazarus', not the 'Court of NationStates'. Absent any statue or clear text in the mandate the court therefore relies on the overall text and structure of the mandate which we hold limits our authority to those crimes committed within Lazarus. The delegate and Council of Lazarene Security are granted powers of security which may reasonably be read to include those not resident in Lazarus, this court is granted no such power.

It is vital that the court not seek to expand its role beyond that explicitly granted to it by the assembly via statue or mandate amendment. Therefore we must constrain our reading and rule that the jurisdiction for criminal reviews within the framework of Mandate 12, the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Act is limited to residents and citizens of Lazarus. The appropriate venue for actions against individuals who do not meet this criteria would be the Council on Lazarene Security.