NEW WESTERN ATLANTIC - Associate Justice Dertas, the lone Liberal Democrat on the High Court, released a series of opinions as several cases have recently been lodged and are requiring the court to take immediate action. This includes three declaratory judgements and a constitutional challenge. Two of the former having been lodged by Trade Federations and Suternia are regarding whether there is a deadline to elect the Chancellor or not. The other case was lodged by Communaccord, it asks the court to clarify whether legislative resolution 89 requires that the War Marshal must receive two-thirds of the entire Senate (25) or two-thirds of sitting Senators (21 at the time of the vote). A breakdown of the Justice's opinion is located below.
"I answer to Communaccord's declaratory judgement on the belief that '2/3 of the senate' means the entire Senate, which consists of 25, not a single one more or less. That would require a vote to reach seventeen, not the fourteen that the senate confirmed Mukolayiv on. Under this ruling, a future case could very well establish that Mukolayiv has not been confirmed yet." While Dertas essentially summed up fellow Justice Trump and Pence's opinion, his opinion on Communaccord's declaratory judgement is notable for the sole reason that it was evenly divided two-to-two until he gave his ruling. This effectively gave Dertas the ability to determine the majority opinion, and he did so by siding with Justices Trump and Pence and Engium, with Justices Katarial and Sozland comprising the dissenters. "Trade Federations' and Suternia's declaratory judgements, while having slight differences, is making the same inquiry. That being whether a Chancellor election should proceed as is or whether the majority coalition (CON-LIB-RFP) can select the Chancellor. I believe the constitution is straightforward in that it reads 'The leader of the majority party or majority coalition shall be the Chancellor of the Senate.' It is clear that the leader of the majority will be the Chancellor of the Senate. There is no room for interpretation here." The opinion of the Justice regarding the Chancellor declaratory judgement is noteworthy as no other member of the Judiciary has publicly stated their opinion on this thus far, so perhaps this will have a domino affect on his colleagues. "Regarding Prime Minister Bergonnia's constitutional challenge to L.R. 089, it is of my interpretation that the constitution only permits the Monarch to establish ministries. The legislation being challenged however does not specifically use the word "ministry" to describe the military. Neither does the law specify what exactly the military is, so I take it that this is an independent agency, which is traditionally placed as a part of the cabinet, and thus a ministry. I rule this law constitutional ONLY if the Monarch can clarify whether he will agree to establish this as a ministry, otherwise I find this law to be effectively void and useless." The constitutional challenge by Prime Minister Bergonnia is contingent on whether the military is a ministry, and if it is not, what is it then? Dertas' opinion on this gives residents an insight on how the court may serve as a check on the Senate, especially as it is widely acknowledged that the legislature has accumulated more of the power share over the past several months.
1 Comment
|
Details
Reporter(s)USGCR, Chief Columnist Archives
February 2019
Categories |