Post by Asairia on Feb 15, 2019 18:14:45 GMT
May 20, 2017
in the case of:
The Socialist Republic of Cosmosplosion [Petitioner]
vs.
The Versutian Federation [Respondant]
Application:
Applicant nation(s): The Socialist Republic of Cosmosplosion
Respondent nation(s): The Versutian Federation
Additional representation(s): Jinwoy, Ghostopolis
Additional representation(s): Jinwoy, Ghostopolis
Law(s) in question: Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution, citing the recent amendment to the section allowing judicial review.
Summary of reasons this law/rule is incompatible: My citizenship was stripped after a parliamentary vote under the original 6.3 section of the Constitution.
Remedy/Remedies sought: I am requesting my citizenship be returned to me as soon as legally possible.
I, Cosmosplosion, hereby certify the above to be correct to the best of my knowledge.
The Minister of Justice has judged your application meritorious. Judicial review transcript can be viewed here.
Judgement
ALAMEI, MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
1. In February 2017, Parliament held a vote to expel Cosmosplosion from its ranks under Article 6.3 of the Constitution, which read as follows:
Former Constitution:
6.3. A two-thirds majority vote of Parliament can ban any member Nation from Parliament permanently.
6.3. A two-thirds majority vote of Parliament can ban any member Nation from Parliament permanently.
2. The claimant took issue with this action, citing Article 8.3, which grants all citizen nations the "inalienable" right to vote in elections and in Parliament.
3. Being rather averse to constitutional crises, I opted to enforce his ejection from Parliament by revoking his status as a citizen, pursuant to Article 6.1's definition of Parliament as "all citizen Nations of the Versutian Federation".
4. Earlier this month, Article 6.3 was amended and the language about expelling members of Parliament removed.
5. Where precedent is concerned, a revision or repeal of a law should not necessarily pardon those punished under it as a matter of course; however, the process of expelling a nation from Parliament does not require or constitute a legal judgment, nor is it subject to the same standards of evidence and due process, and therefore cannot be considered equivalent to a decision of the Court.
6. A ban from Parliament is inconsistent with the Constitution in both letter and spirit.
IT IS ORDERED the petitioner's ban from Parliament be overturned and his citizenship restored.
Judgment delivered:
May 31, 2017
Appeals
Notice:
Both Claimant and Defendant have the right to request leave to appeal where either:
- substantial new evidence has come to light, or
- the laws upon which this judgement is based have changed retrospectively.
Claimant and defendant have seven (7) days in which to request leave to appeal in this thread, or otherwise by personal message to the Minister of Justice.