+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Basement (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: It & Maintenance Department (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+---- Forum: Archive (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=215)
+----- Forum: Third Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+------ Forum: Court of Lazarus (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+------- Forum: Rulings (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=30)
+------- Thread: Is HEPA Constitutional? (/showthread.php?tid=1469)
Is HEPA Constitutional? - Domais - 05-16-2020
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?
RE: Is HEPA Constitutional? - Atlantica - 06-20-2020
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 of the Delegacy, distinguished from the person of the Delegate. The Court holds that this is the case because the Council on Lazarene Security is entirely comprised of the Delegate's appointees, the Council on Lazarene Security's duties almost entirely consist of working with the Delegate, and the Council on Lazarene Security is the sole position of power that the Delegate is not removed from entirely upon ascension to the Delegacy. Understood in this capacity, the Council on Lazarene Security's power to designate Hostile Entities or Persons is an extension of the Delegate's power to do so, and both powers, especially with the Assembly's consent, are penumbras of Sections 4 and 5 of Article II.
Although this is tangential to the Court's ruling, the Court of Lazarus also finds it prudent to address the subject of the Delegate's power to grant a pardon or clemency, which the plaintiff alludes to in their request for a ruling. The Court finds that the Delegate does not have the power to grant a pardon or clemency, and instead must follow the Court's sentencing on this matter, per §8 of Article V of the Mandate, which states that the Court has the power to "compel" the Delegate to carry out its proscribed punishments for individuals convicted of a criminal offense. However, this is no way negates the Assembly's power to grant a pardon or clemency by a three-quarters vote, also per §8 of Article V.