Presences: Diderot Mirabeau, Flyingroc Chung (not present during the whole meeting), Gwyneth Llewelyn
Agenda: Validate the Act introducing the Special Comission on the Judiciary and its aggregated Code of Procedures of the Judiciary that replaces the current one in effect
After a public request by the Dean for citizens to submit their comments supporting the constitutionality of this recently approved Act, as well as kindly requesting all members of the Scientific Council to deliberate on the issue, the following was decided:
[*:1lfblpt8]That the five first points introduced by this Act, which create the Special Commission on the Judiciary, are fully constitutional, as well as being possible to interpret them as a manifestation of the internal procedures of the Representative Assembly allowing them to delegate tasks to committees ([url=http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... s:1lfblpt8]"Neufreistadt Representative Assembly Procedures for Meetings"[/url:1lfblpt8], articles 4, 8, and 9) with better clarifications as to the exact scope of this new Comission;[/*
1lfblpt8]
[*:1lfblpt8]That under Article 17 of the Judiciary Act ([url=http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... 1:1lfblpt8]NL5-11[/url:1lfblpt8]), "[i:1lfblpt8]Subject to any provision in this Constitution, and any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly, Courts of Common Jurisdiction shall have inherent jurisdiction to govern their own proceedings.[/i:1lfblpt8]", the introduction of a Code of Procedures to govern the Judiciary's procedures established in article 6 of the Special Commission on the Judiciary is indeed allowed;[/*1lfblpt8]
[*:1lfblpt8]That Rules 1, 2, 4, and 5 of said proposed Code do not violate the constitution, founding documents, or the Code of Law of the CDS;[/*1lfblpt8]
[*:1lfblpt8]That Rule 3, introducing "pretrial" hearings, is mostly consistent with the scope of constitutional powers. However, its last phrase [i:1lfblpt8]In the event that no agreement is reached, the court may issue a pretrial order, but such pretrial order may be immediately appealed to the Scientific Council, which may reverse, remand, or amend any order that it deems unreasonable.[/i:1lfblpt8] introduces an inconstitutionality: the Scientific Council, under the Judiciary Act, is not allowed to accept appeals on grounds of "unreasonability" but only "constitutionality" (see 12th amendment of the Constitution, after the end of Article III, Section 8 (Powers of the Scientific Council), new articles 1 and 2 establishing the grounds for appeal to the Scientific Council)[/*1lfblpt8][/list
1lfblpt8]
It is thus the fundamented opinion of the Scientific Council that a Code of Procedures introduced by the Representative Assembly cannot, in fact, change the powers of the Scientific Council which are constitutionally defined (in the current case, broadening its scope of valid appeals).Therefore, the Scientific Council suggests to strike down the relevant phrase ("[i:1lfblpt8]but such pretrial order may be immediately appealed to the Scientific Council, which may reverse, remand, or amend any order that it deems unreasonable.[/i:1lfblpt8]"), since the powers of appeal to the Scientific Council are already firmly established in the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.
The Scientific Council thus approved (by all its members present at the meeting) to re-submit the Special Comission on the Judiciary Act back to the Representative Assembly for a rewriting.
1lfblpt8]
1lfblpt8]