Aulic Court Review: Relationship between the Royal Duma and Aulic Government

[Piov 2431]

AULIC COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF HANSETI-RUSKA

 

REVIEW ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ROYAL DUMA AND THE AULIC GOVERNMENT

 

 

5th of Wzuvar & Byvca, 352 E.S.

 

 

---

 

Jovenaars

Sir Sigmar J. Baruch

Ms. Reza B. Gynsburg

Mr. Otto Wittenbach

Mr. Lukas Rakoczy 

 

MAJORITY: Gynsburg, joined by Wittenbach

CONCURRENCE: Baruch, Rakoczy

DISSENT:

 

Exposition

After debate on the Elected Integrity and Transparency Act of 351 E.S., the question on the legality of the provisions was raised by the Wick Palatinial Government who published an amicus brief on the 8th day of Wzucar and Byvca. At the center of dispute lies the ability of the Royal Duma to debate and pass legislation or advisory resolution to reform the institutional composition of the Royal Duma, particularly by penalizing those elected officials perceived to be derelict in their duties. In the bill in question, Lady Marcella Barclay sought to amend Title 211 and 212 of the Haurul Caezk to reflect changes that would require quotas on Tribune and Aldermen. If quotas were not met, the amendments would require that derelict officeholders be suspended from office.

 

212.04: Legislation

        212.041: The Duma may pass Legislative Bills with the intent to legislate on any matter barring the functioning and composition of the military nor any matter pertaining to the Jura i Krawn; 

 

212.03: Advisory Resolutions

        212.031: Advisory Resolutions are published as advisory to the Crown and the Aulic Council from the Royal Duma and enshrine the sentiment of the Haeseni people, neither requiring nor seeking legal effect;

        212.032: The Crown may request an Advisory Resolution from the Royal Duma;

 

This discrepancy extends toward the overall relationship between the exercise of legislative and consensus powers of the Royal Duma toward itself and the other entities it is listed with under the Jura i Zem.

 

Jovenaar R.B. Gynsburg delivered the opinion of the court;

 

The dispute begins with the question of whether the Royal Duma may enact changes to its institutional structure. If this was permitted, then the Royal Duma has powers to consider making changes to the other structures of the Aulic Government broadly, since they are all listed in the Jura i Zem (Laws of State). It is the belief of the Aulic Court that the powers of the Royal Duma outlined in Titles 210 - 212 do not have the authority to make changes to themselves because the Royal Duma, like the Aulic Council, was created directly by a Royal Edict. To seek to make changes by using legislative power to the Aulic Government is in contradiction to the Crown’s power. 

 

The Aulic Edict of 341 E.S. dictates the composition of the Aulic Council, which was signed by virtue of the Crown’s prerogative. Similarly, in past cases when the Royal Duma was amended to reform various elected offices, the division of the peers into cohorts, the addition or expulsion of noble families as seated members, and the addition of non-elected offices, was exercised by royal prerogative. Such was the case when the Josefian Reforms of 343 E.S. and the Reforms of the Royal Duma in 315 E.S. were enacted to further alter the Royal Duma. It is the Crown that gives legitimacy to all branches of government and to the law. 

 

Jovenaar Sigmar J. Baruch in concurrence;

 

As mentioned in the above opinion, The Crown and Lord Herzen are the acting authority over the Royal Duma. Citing precedence, in Reforms of the Royal Duma, 315 E.S., Herzen Henrik Vanir, with the approval of King Sigismund II, made reforms that removed the seats of cadet branches, the Archbishop of Jorenus, and the Exchequer. This was done through the consultation of the Lord Herzen and the King, not through the legislative abilities of the Royal Duma. To cite further precedent, the Josefian Reforms of 343 E.S. were approved by and consulted between Herzen Osvald Barclay and King Josef I, once again done through the consultation and approval of the Lord Herzen and the Crown, not through the legislative authority or powers of the Royal Duma. After a long line of past reforms and precedent, none were done through the legislative authorities, rather through the consultations of the Lord Herzen, the Aulic Government, and the Crown who must give final confirmation on any and all reforms of the Royal Duma.

 

While, through precedent, the Royal Duma does not have the ability to legislate on internal affairs of the Aulic government or the Royal Duma itself, it does have the ability to pass Advisory Resolution which states the majority opinion of the Royal Duma. Through past precedent, the Nenzing Proclamation and Josephite Liberties penned by the leaders of the Marnantine forces and Emperor Joseph I Marna, Herzen Georg Alimar and the Royal Duma unanimously announced or declared support and agreement with the Nenzing Proclamation in an advisory capacity. There is a distinct difference between a Legislative bill and an Advisory Resolution. While Legislative bills must seek assent from the Crown, Advisory Resolutions are a majority opinion of the Royal Duma, which does not seek affirmation of the Crown, but rather states the opinion of the Royal Duma publicly. The Royal Duma does have the legal capacity through past precedent to publicly state their opinions on matters of itself and the Aulic Government, however Advisory Resolutions do not require an address from the Crown or the Aulic Government and do not hold weight or authority over edicts of the Crown, legislative bills, or rulings of the Aulic Court.

 

Jovenaar Lukas Rakoczy in concurrence;

 

It is the unanimous opinion of this Court and its Jovenaars that the Crown is solely responsible for the composition and affairs of the Aulic Government. As outlined in Sections 210 - 212 of the Jura i Zem, it is the belief of this court that the Royal Duma does not have the authority to make changes to the composition of the Government, for doing so would erode the Crown’s authority in all matters of state. It is from the Crown that the government draws its legitimacy, which itself draws its legitimacy from Godan. Any actions to bypass the absolute authority of the Crown would therefore have no legitimacy and no backing in law.

 

Per Section 212 of the Jura i Zem, Advisory Resolutions do not require legal effect, yet there is no prohibition against resolutions with intended legal effects. It is the opinion of the Jovenaar that these too must also be prohibited. Given that all acts of the Duma, resolution or bill, must first be approved by the Crown, it can be drawn that these are all advisory in nature. Therefore, it is the Jovenaar’s opinion that the Duma should not issue advisory resolutions with legal effect pertaining to the Jura i Zem. The end effect of either a bill or a resolution on this matter would be the same in effect, both requesting change to the composition and operations of the Aulic Government, both subject to Crown approval. If the former is to be prohibited, then it should follow that the latter must too be prohibited for the same reasons.

 

It is so ordered.