[DRAFT] Judicial Enforcement of Nat'l Law

[Imperium Anglorum]

Whereas various national judiciaries use pretexts of individualised harm and other frivolous reasons to deny the fulfilment of rights guaranteed by a nation's constitution, basic law, or organic law:

And whereas such pretexts require an expensive search for persons suffering harm who are willing to come forwards to defend their claims in open court, placing immense burdens and costs towards even starting a valid complaint against injuries affecting a small or poor community:

And whereas various nations deny the natural right of a victim to seek the criminal punishment of someone who has criminally wronged them, giving incentives for victims to engage in vigilantism instead of subjecting their accusations to a fair trial in open court:

And whereas the failure to enforce such rights is and ought to be considered a manifest injustice:

Be it enacted by the World Assembly as follows:

1. In this resolution, a judicial officer denies justice when the officer refuses to judge a case on its merits or refuses to issue or enforce mandatory orders arising from such a judgement for any of the following reasons:

1. the claimant fails to show some injurious action or inaction has been or will be imminently done specifically to the claimant,
2. the claimant fails to show a particular form of relief or judgement which resolves an injury to them,
3. the law is vague or insufficient in regulating the matter in question, or
4. the judicial officer is unwilling to exercise powers to grant relief.

2. Judicial officers may not deny justice in cases where resolving the claim relates directly to interpretation of or validity of a member nation's constitution or fundamental law. Nor may judicial officers deny justice in cases where the lawful authority of a person to fill or to exercise a judicial office is called into question.

3. Any judicial officer within a member nation, who is found to violate this resolution beyond a reasonable doubt, shall be removed from their position, prohibited from holding any public office in any member nation, prohibited from receiving any future remuneration for services done or to be done for that member nation and its governmental subdivisions, and denied any right or privilege to plead before or preside over any court in any member nation. That judicial officer shall further be personally liable in a civil capacity for injuries resulting from such violations.

4. Persons or that person's heirs, ie claimants, who have been criminally wronged by another party, may initiate a criminal action against that party with good cause. No member nation may require such claimants to seek the approval of the state before initiating such action or require the discontinuation of such action at the discretion of the state. Member nation judiciaries may not, on appeal or in the first instance, subject such actions to different burdens than those applied to a public prosecutor. However, if a claimant and the respondent enter into an agreement suppressing the right of the claimant to bring criminal action, courts may enforce that agreement until it is broken.

5. No member nation may purport to offer any immunity, qualified or absolute, to judicial officers for actions violating section 2.

Furtherment of Democracy: Mild.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Compare with:

In the 1930s, a justice was appointed to the US Supreme Court, probably in violation of the constitution. The appearances were upheld, a senator was confirmed as a justice. But the specific means of doing so might be unconstitutional. This is of extreme interest to any society which believes themselves to be lawful: laws can only be administered by those with the authority to administer them. Whether someone on a court is actually a member is of great importance to those before or possibly before the court. To deny questions for procedural grounds as to why a purported judicial officer even has authority to exercise their office is to entrust the law into thieves. See William Baude, The Unconstitutionality of Justice Black, 98 Texas L Rev 327 (2019) LINK. See also Ex parte Levitt, 302 US 633 (1937) (below).

The grounds of this motion are that the appointment of Mr Justice Black by the President and the confirmation thereof by the Senate of the United States were null and void by reason of his ineligibility under Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, and because there was no vacancy for which the appointment could lawfully be made. The motion papers disclose no interest upon the part of the petitioner other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court. That is insufficient. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. Tyler v. Judges, 179 U.S. 405, 406; Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524, 534; Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 549, 550; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488. The motion is denied.

Ex parte Levitt. 165 words excluding citations.

Also relevant here are two cases: Equal Means Equal v Ferriero (Case 1:20-cv-10015) LINK. Virginia v Ferriero (ongoing). LINK (Virginia et al's motion for summary judgement); LINK (Archivist arguing Virginia et al do not have standing). In both, suits were filed by various persons to have federal courts rule on the validity of the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in early January. The suit in Mass was dismissed for lack of standing. I feel such a thing is ridiculous: it is exceptionally important if a country is to be ruled by laws, to make decisions on what the law even is. Judgement on merits ought to be produced, regardless of whether judgement is for or against. It may be impossible to find someone who would be harmed by an amendment that takes effect two years after ratification against laws that do not yet exist. Such a barrier makes it effectively impossible, without specific waivers for – say – the interest of justice or resolution, to provide clear statements as to what the law is.

[Attempted Socialism]

1. No limitation that precludes the issuing of judgement on merits or mandatory orders arising from that judgement, which requires that the party bringing suit show that some injurious action be taken or shall imminently be taken against that party, may be enforced in any matter that relates to the validity of amendments to or enactment of a member nation's constitution or fundamental law.

There's probably a language barrier (My constitutional law course was in Danish, as was my public administration law course), but this was nigh-incomprehensible to me. I almost had to graph out the negations and sentence syntax to figure out what was being prohibited. This could be a lot clearer.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. No limitation that precludes the issuing of judgement on merits or mandatory orders arising from that judgement, which requires that the party bringing suit show that some injurious action be taken or shall imminently be taken against that party, may be enforced in any matter that relates to the validity of amendments to or enactment of a member nation's constitution or fundamental law.

There's probably a language barrier (My constitutional law course was in Danish, as was my public administration law course), but this was nigh-incomprehensible to me. I almost had to graph out the negations and sentence syntax to figure out what was being prohibited. This could be a lot clearer.

How about:

Member nations may not enforce any limitation precluding judgement on merits or mandatory orders arising therefrom which requires that the claimant show an injury or imminent injury against the claimant in any matter relating to the validity of amendments to or enactment of a member nation's constitution, fundamental law, or bill of rights.

[Attempted Socialism]

It's past midnight here, so I'll start off by saying a lot better, and get back with a more substantial response soon-ish.

Wait, you edited it back from 1 - a - b clauses? Errr...

[Hannasea]

Cf William Baude, The Unconstitutionality of Justice Black, 98 Texas L Rev 327 (2019). Also cf Equal Means Equal v Ferriero (Case 1:20-cv-10015).

No. This is a game. Present an in-character defense of your proposal or else just go to the General forum to debate this RL shit.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I have no idea what any of this means.

[Kelssek]

Cf William Baude, The Unconstitutionality of Justice Black, 98 Texas L Rev 327 (2019). Also cf Equal Means Equal v Ferriero (Case 1:20-cv-10015).

Ambassador, the documents you have tabled appear to be fantasy novels that we have to pay for.

[Tinhampton]

Full support. There are good ideas and then there are SMASHING IDEAS, MATE!.

[Kelssek]

As you like it so much and the proposer isn't giving us much help, can you explain what problem it addresses and why we would want to disbar judges for something that would seem well within their power to do?

For many countries, the constitutional court hears cases at its discretion. It would seem this proposal would basically lead to constantly disbarring entire constitutional courts every time they decline to hear a legal challenge, however spurious or inappropriate it might be.

[OOC: If we're going to play this game, see for example Teskey v. Canada (Attorney General), ONSC 5046, 2013, which the court of final appeal ultimately declined.]

[Old Hope]

Whereas various national judiciaries have been observed by this august Assembly to utilise pretexts of individualised harm and other matters to deny the fulfilment of rights guaranteed by a nation's constitution, basic law, or organic law:

And whereas the failure to enforce such rights is and ought to be considered a manifest denial of justice:

Be it enacted by the World Assembly as follows:

1. In this resolution, a judicial officer denies justice when that officer refuses to issue a judgement on the merits or mandatory orders arising from such a judgement, for any of the following pretexts:

1. the claimant fails to show some injurious action or inaction has been or will be imminently done to the claimant,
2. the claimant fails to show a particularised form of relief which resolves an injury to them,
3. the law is vague or insufficient in regulating the matter in question, or
4. the judiciary is unwilling to exercise powers which they are granted to give relief.

We are not sure if we even understand what the law is supposed to say.

2. Judicial officers may not deny justice in any case where resolving the matter brought directly relates to interpretation or validity of a member nation's constitution or fundamental law. Nor shall judicial officers deny justice in cases where the warrant of a judicial officer is called into question.

We will not support any WA law that allows people to clog up our nation`s judical systems by issuing frivolous complaints related to our constitution.

3. Any judicial officer within a member nation, who is found to violate this resolution beyond a reasonable doubt, shall be removed from their position, prohibited from holding any public office in any member nation, prohibited from receiving any future remuneration for services done or to be done for that member nation and its governmental subdivisions, and denied any right or privilege to plead before or preside over any court in any member nation. That judicial officer shall further be personally liable in a civil capacity for injuries resulting from such violations.

We like mandatory punishments, but this is a step too far. It even applies in ALL member nations. Also, the personal liability clause will draw up insurance costs to an inacceptable amount due to this applying even in cases of negligence. This will cripple any nation`s judical system.

4. No member nation may prohibit private prosecutions against judicial officers on charges related to section 2. Nor shall any member nation purport to offer any immunity, qualified or absolute, to judicial officers for actions violating section 2.

Considering that 3. does not even need negligence this is just absurd.

Furtherment of Democracy: Mild.

OOC: This resolution is not mild at all. Nor is it Furtherment of Democracy. Its numerous side effects probably place it into Moral Decency at the moment.
IC: Ambassador, you must have erred when you entered this room. This is not the waste disposal room.

[Picairn]

Ambassador, the documents you have tabled appear to be fantasy novels that we have to pay for.

"That's weird, Ambassador, when I used the popular search tool Google to find these references, I found out that they are available as PDF files."

[Kelssek]

Fair enough, but the point remains that if you make a proposal, you'd better make an argument for it that is not simply "please read this Earthworlds fan fiction". Because that is quite literally what is being done here, leaving even those who want to help with no clue about what this is proposal intended to accomplish or why it calls for such incredibly drastic measures like expelling judges from the legal profession and even just public employment for what would seem to be something entirely reasonable for them to do.

This is another way of saying what Hannasea said. IA has been doing this kind of thing as an intellectual intimidation tactic for a while, but "my argument is this very long law journal article" is next-level rude and lazy, without even getting into the apparent America-specificity of this issue - but this is just a guess because no effort has been made to explain what this is for and why we need this.

[Tinfect]

This is another way of saying what Hannasea said. IA has been doing this kind of thing as an intellectual intimidation tactic for a while, but "my argument is this very long law journal article" is next-level rude and lazy, without even getting into the apparent America-specificity of this issue - but this is just a guess because no effort has been made to explain what this is for and why we need this.

OOC:
Very much this. Not only is this draft completely incomprehensible on its own, this is not the first time he's refused to make any kind of argument in favor of just linking some paywalled study.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. These aren't new ideas.

Whereas various national judiciaries have been observed by this august Assembly to utilise pretexts of individualised harm and other matters to deny the fulfilment of rights guaranteed by a nation's constitution, basic law, or organic law:

And whereas the failure to enforce such rights is and ought to be considered a manifest denial of justice:

At times, governments need to have judicial orders enforced upon them to have the state's fundamental laws have meaning. This is, in many cases, something that we see in the enforcement of liberal or progressive legislation. (OOC: Cf Equal Means Equal v Ferriero (denying judgement on merits due to standing requirements precluding adjudication of whether the Equal Rights Amendment is part of the US constitution); see also Gill v Whitford.) Resolving a question of validity and interpretation in fundamental legislation is extremely important not only to some person suffering a concrete and particularised injury. It is important to all citizens in any nation, for it defines their rights and what a nation can do to them. Creating procedural barriers of the sort defined in section 1 which stop resolution of such fundamental questions, when all citizens are affected by their resolution, is equivalent to letting illegal activities continue simply because nobody can find someone directly harmed who is willing and able to pay the costs of suing the government.

---

OOC follows.

OOC:IA has been doing this kind of thing as an intellectual intimidation tactic for a while, but "my argument is this very long law journal article" is next-level rude and lazy, without even getting into the apparent America-specificity of this issue - but this is just a guess because no effort has been made to explain what this is for and why we need this.

There's literally nothing intimidating about a law journal article. Moreover, I don't give it as an argument, it is given as a comparison to the resolution (ie, cf). The only law journal article from above (ie Baude 2019) relates to the question of whether an appointed judge actually holds licence to be that judge under the law. I feel that denying standing for such a question also is denial of justice, especially when a judge purports to hold authority to determine legal questions. In the case that some judge does not die without having exercised that authority, illegal activity is inevitable.

I'll also note that these are very different questions from the last time we engaged substantively, on deposit insurance. Here, it's very much a question of morals. In deposit insurance, there are clear facts that are deducible and testable. Developing new arguments for why the sky is not blue and my responding with academic research is not attempting to intimidate you in as much as you are just plainly wrong.

As to the American parochialism. I agree that it might be something of an America-specific issue. American law in these respects, I feel, is absolutely terrible and should be seen as a model of what not to do.

Fair enough, but the point remains that if you make a proposal, you'd better make an argument for it that is not simply "please read this Earthworlds fan fiction". Because that is quite literally what is being done here, leaving even those who want to help with no clue about what this is proposal intended to accomplish or why it calls for such incredibly drastic measures like expelling judges from the legal profession and even just public employment for what would seem to be something entirely reasonable for them to do.

I interpreted this provision as OOC as well. I think the kritarchy ought to be dismantled. I'm not wedded to some specific enforcement mechanism.

"That's weird, Ambassador, when I used the popular search tool Google to find these references, I found out that they are available as PDF files."

I'll edit in PDF links because apparently nobody has heard of Google Scholar.

[OOC: If we're going to play this game, see for example Teskey v. Canada (Attorney General), ONSC 5046, 2013, which the court of final appeal ultimately declined.]

I think that question ought to have been resolved. It is a legitimate one in a monarchial system, especially if the monarchy purports to be a constitutional one. Rules of succession ought not to discriminate against Catholics and while I understand (perhaps even empathise) with the position that the 1707 Act sets forth in the context of 18th century domestic and international politics in their disbarring of all Catholics from the throne, such a provision by the time of 1960 and the Canadian Bill of Rights is little more than a vestige of virulent pre-emancipation anti-Catholicism.

OOC:
I have no idea what any of this means.

Standing is a legal doctrine that precludes judgement on merits. "The constitutional requirement of standing necessitates that a plaintiff show 'a concrete and particularized injury in fact, a causal connection that permits tracing the claimed injury to the defendant’s actions, and a likelihood that prevailing in the action will afford some redress for the injury'. Equal Means Equal v Ferriero p 9 (citations omitted). This resolution would eliminate, in cases 'directly relat[ing] to interpretation or validity of a member nation's constitution or fundamental law', any requirement to show 'some injurious action or inaction has been or will be imminently done to the claimant' or to show 'a particularised form of relief which resolves an injury to them'.

In more vulgar terms, standing is "are you fucked? did they fuck you? if judgement is granted for you, are you unfucked?". All answers must be yes. The proposal also eliminates other doctrines such 'we don't want to do anything' (political question, see Baker v Carr) and 'constitution is vague so we're not doing anything'. Such challenges would have to be resolved on merits alone.

For many countries, the constitutional court hears cases at its discretion. It would seem this proposal would basically lead to constantly disbarring entire constitutional courts every time they decline to hear a legal challenge, however spurious or inappropriate it might be.

No, it wouldn't, because a pretext such as declining certiorari is not included in the list of pretexts. But that is a good point. I'll consider adding a provision prohibiting constitutional courts from declining to hear cases. Plus, even if that were the case, constitutional courts wouldn't be disbarred. The members would far more than likely simply do the duties they are paid for.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
While the explanation is appreciated, it would be even more greatly appreciated if you could simply use plain language in the draft itself, rather than having to resort to increasingly reductive explanations whenever someone else comes in who can't read whatever obfuscatory nonsense-language the draft is written in.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC:
While the explanation is appreciated, it would be even more greatly appreciated if you could simply use plain language in the draft itself, rather than having to resort to increasingly reductive explanations whenever someone else comes in who can't read whatever obfuscatory nonsense-language the draft is written in.

I'm well aware that I write like a British bureaucrat. What would you suggest?

[Tinfect]

I'm well aware that I write like a British bureaucrat. What would you suggest?

OOC:
A total rewrite in less dense language. I'd offer a quick edit of the draft myself, but I still can't figure out what it's trying to say half the time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

but I still can't figure out what it's trying to say half the time.

So where can you not figure out what it's trying to say?

[Old Hope]

[...]

For many countries, the constitutional court hears cases at its discretion. It would seem this proposal would basically lead to constantly disbarring entire constitutional courts every time they decline to hear a legal challenge, however spurious or inappropriate it might be.

No, it wouldn't, because a pretext such as declining certiorari is not included in the list of pretexts. But that is a good point. I'll consider adding a provision prohibiting constitutional courts from declining to hear cases. Plus, even if that were the case, constitutional courts wouldn't be disbarred. The members would far more than likely simply do the duties they are paid for.

What about the extremely high number of justices needed to process 1000000 constitutional complaints speedily, at the same time?

[Imperium Anglorum]

What about the extremely high number of justices needed to process 1000000 constitutional complaints speedily, at the same time?

Elsie. Why should any law abiding nation consider your input on WA law? But let's set that aside. The Old Hope delegation again proves that they are incapable of a good faith argument. What about the extremely high number of justices necessary to process 1000000 standing dismissal speedily, at the same time? Make better arguments that respect the comparative.

OOC. That said though, it surely is no more burdensome to a member nation's judiciary than the burden to the Secretariat in writing "Take care to do your research and consider your argument before making another frivolous challenge" at vexatious litigants.

[Old Hope]

What about the extremely high number of justices needed to process 1000000 constitutional complaints speedily, at the same time?

Elsie. Why should any law abiding nation consider your input on WA law? But let's set that aside. The Old Hope delegation again proves that they are incapable of a good faith argument. What about the extremely high number of justices necessary to process 1000000 standing dismissal speedily, at the same time? Make better arguments that respect the comparative.

OOC. That said though, it surely is no more burdensome to a member nation's judiciary than the burden to the Secretariat in writing "Take care to do your research and consider your argument before making another frivolous challenge" at vexatious litigants.

Well, people don`t bother to file things that have an incredibly high chance to be speedily dismissed, usually.

[Separatist Peoples]

Elsie. Why should any law abiding nation consider your input on WA law? But let's set that aside. The Old Hope delegation again proves that they are incapable of a good faith argument. What about the extremely high number of justices necessary to process 1000000 standing dismissal speedily, at the same time? Make better arguments that respect the comparative.

OOC. That said though, it surely is no more burdensome to a member nation's judiciary than the burden to the Secretariat in writing "Take care to do your research and consider your argument before making another frivolous challenge" at vexatious litigants.

Well, people don`t bother to file things that have an incredibly high chance to be speedily dismissed, usually.

OOC: I'm not sure how you would know, but IA hit the nail on the head.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Why the overuse of conjunctions and inappropriate use of colons in the preamble? Would it not be better to use semicolons instead?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Why the overuse of conjunctions and inappropriate use of colons in the preamble? Would it not be better to use semicolons instead?

I'm shocked, shocked that the Statute of Westminster 1931 has colons at the end of clauses in the preamble! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge ... /4/enacted. And the Parliament Act 1911?! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/13. And the British North America Act 1867?! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/30-31/3. Even in Canada, the same Act, with the Constitution Act, 1867?! https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-1.html.

And shockingly, even the First Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1939. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939 ... ed/en/html. And the Second Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1941?! http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1941 ... ed/en/html. And heavens, no, even the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Act 2018?! http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018 ... print.html.

How could so many people, over so many countries, over such a long period of time put colons after clauses starting with "Whereas" and "And whereas"? Surely, these six generations of parliamentary counsel, over three different countries, had not committed such sacrilegious error in their writings? Oh the times! Oh the morals! What a terrible thing it is that we fail to live up to our forefathers, to heed the example of Gracchus and recognise the rightness and importance of augury and the ways of doing things, that we might, over this great period, to have forgotten the importance of the semi-colon at the end of clauses.

Or perhaps, the more mundane explanation is that colons following "Whereas" and "And whereas" is just accepted parliamentary formatting. The only case where semi-colons regularly is in American legislation. Eg https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... xt?r=1&s=5. I have no explanation for why the US has decided to deviate from the ways of our ancestors. Though, it doesn't seem that was the case in the early republic. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... recNum=261.

---

EDIT:

All of these acts have colons separating "Whereas" and "And whereas".

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/2/introduction
HSBC Investment Banking Act 2002: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2002/3/introduction
National Australia Group Europe Act 2001: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2001/5/introduction
HFC Bank Act 1999: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1999/4/introduction
Lloyds TSB Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1998/5/introduction
Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/197 ... troduction
Civil List Act 1972: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/7/introduction
Game Act 1970: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/197 ... troduction
Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Act 1967: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/196 ... troduction
Wills Act 1963: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/196 ... troduction
Foreign Compensation Act 1962: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eli ... troduction
Treason Act 1814: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... troduction
Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1802: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... troduction

Maybe use of a colon there is just common practice.