Proposal [Proposal] Constitutional Procedures Act

[New Rogernomics]

Constitutional Procedures Act

Proposed By: @New Rogernomics ​

Preamble

This act defines the procedure by which the Court shall reconcile contradictions within and between this Mandate and constitutional laws, as well as contradictions within and between general law.

Section 1. Petitioning the Court

(1) Petitions to rule shall:

a. be submitted to the Court in a public area,
b. include quotations and commentary to justify the petition.

(2) The Court shall consider the petition for at least three days before deciding whether to conduct a ruling by two-thirds vote.

(3) Upon two or more justices deciding to conduct a ruling, the Court shall immediately serve notice in a public place that a ruling will take place. Should they choose not to rule, they may instead make a non-binding recommendation.

Section 2. Rulings of the Court

(1) Rulings and a summary of their reasoning shall be published in a public area.

(2) Once a petition has been accepted by the Court, they shall take a minimum of seven days to a maximum of 60 days to make a ruling.

I've been considering posting this a while but haven't got around to putting forward the proposal till now.

This shall set procedures for the constitutional part of the Court.

I think this would reduce the pressure to have to make binding decisions about all constitutional questions, as often advising the Assembly to change a law or a part of the mandate is good enough.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Does anyone have objections, or can we go ahead and motion to vote?

 

[Frankender]

(2) The Court shall consider the petition for three days before deciding whether to conduct a ruling by two-thirds vote.

Should this be a minimum instead? Other than that I am in favor

 

[Chanku]

I'm rather against this act as it is. Mostly because of the required three day waiting period before the court can even respond to a case. Also the wording is clearly copy/pasted from the Criminal Code, as it uses the term 'conduct a ruling' when using the term 'conduct' makes little sense in this case.

My biggest issue is the fact that it takes exactly three days before the court can even say whether or not they will take on a petition, and not even about discussing but rather just hearing the matter. Not to mention that this act them requires an additional seven days before the court is even allowed to rule, which means that cases that are relatively simple and quick now take much, much longer to decide on -- up to 10 days. Additionally, the court is required to give a ruling in 60 days after the court agrees to consider a petition, but does not consider any issue that could arise within that time frame. For example, what if the court is unable to rule because we don't have enough justices? In that instance the singular Justice would legally be violating the law, and thus potentially be committing a crime. Additionally, what if the court composition changes before the deadline and now no majority exists? What if the court becomes deadlocked on an opinion and can't actually render one? All of these issues would cause the court to be violating this law.

Additionally, this act provides the court no leeway so that, should this pass, the court would be forced to follow these procedures for this specific exercise of its power, which leads to the exact same issues we now are dealing with in the Criminal Procedures Act. The added unnecessary time would unnecessarily bog and slow down the courts even more. I'm not necessarily against procedures set forth by the Assembly in this area, just this specific proposal.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I'm rather against this act as it is. Mostly because of the required three day waiting period before the court can even respond to a case. Also the wording is clearly copy/pasted from the Criminal Code, as it uses the term 'conduct a ruling' when using the term 'conduct' makes little sense in this case.

That waiting period is the same as in criminal procedures act, which is why it is there.

Additionally, the court is required to give a ruling in 60 days after the court agrees to consider a petition,

Then what time would be appropriate, as this is 60 days after a petition has been accepted by the Court.

but does not consider any issue that could arise within that time frame. For example, what if the court is unable to rule because we don't have enough justices?

The court can rule with two or three justices, as it has been so far on constitutional cases, and even a full court is no guarantee that a decision may be reached.

In that instance the singular Justice would legally be violating the law, and thus potentially be committing a crime

Two justices are required to take up a case to be able to rule on it, so they'd be violating the mandate if they tried to rule with less than two justices, well before this act comes into play.

this act provides the court no leeway so that, should this pass, the court would be forced to follow these procedures for this specific exercise of its power

It has far fewer procedural requirements than the Criminal Procedures act, and only sets a time limit. All that is laid out in this act the Court can already do, including the part about the non-binding recommendation.

Just like the Criminal Procedures Act, this shouldn't be assumed to deny the Court the ability to set additional procedures and rules.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Should this be a minimum instead? Other than that I am in favor

Not opposed to changing times and such, so it could be changed to that if people are into that.

(2) The Court shall consider the petition for at least three days before deciding whether to conduct a ruling by two-thirds vote.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Tabling this, as I don't think it will resolve the underlying issue with the Court.