Ruling on the Medical Documentation Act, 1803

[Hanrahan 2983]

   

RULING

ON THE

MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION ACT

OF 1803

Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Napier

 

The opinion and ruling of the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Napier, are as follows; 

 

Mr. Nicephore presents the argument that the Medical Documentation Act of 1803 is unconstitutional as it is a municipal document that sets duties and regulations on a Crown employee.

 

IMPERIAL CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE 

"That a city legislature be established and hereinafter entitled the Assembly of the City of Providence which shall have the power to enact legislation particular to the jurisdiction of the City of Providence." 

 

“The city legislature shall pass bills into law by simple majority, which when published will be entitled Local Laws so as to distinguish them from national Acts of the Diet, and may pertain to the following spheres… 

   

I. Local taxation.

II. Budgeting, salaries, and all matters of city income and expenditure.

III. Civil law concerning relations between residents of the city.

IV. Regulation, concerning the regulation of other matters of import to the city not aforementioned.

V. Votes of no confidence, whereby the Lord Mayor may be recalled and new elections held provided a four-fifths vote.”

 

When compared with the duties laid out by the Medical Documentation Act of 1803... 

 

Local Law, THE MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION ACT, 1803, Section II, “Documentation”:

 

1. The Practitioner-General shall be tasked with the documentation of all certified doctors within the capital City of Providence.

3. The Practitioner-General shall regularly update the documentation to include all newly certified doctors within the City of Providence.

4. The Practitioner-General shall release the documentation to the public.

 

It is clear that the Municipal act affects the duties of the Crown Employee, i.e, the Solicitor General. 

 

However, upon review of the boundaries of municipal “local” law and Crown “National” law, there are no clear legal statements that prevent “local” law from regulating “National” employees in said locality, only that “National” law supersedes “local” law. 

 

“The city legislature shall pass bills into law by simple majority, which when published will be entitled Local Laws so as to distinguish them from national Acts of the Diet, and may pertain to the following spheres…”

 

IV. Regulation, concerning the regulation of other matters of import to the city not aforementioned.

 

That the city legislature be considered a parliamentary body with the power to legislate concerning inner matters concerning itself, as well as concerning the frequency, manner, place, and the suffrage of local elections so long as these rules do not conflict with Our charter. 

 

Be it established by Our writ that the government and legislature established by this charter remain subservient in all respects to Our Crown and Counsellors, as well as to Acts of the Our Diet, in which Our law is supreme over Local Laws of the city.”

   

The Medical Documentation Act of 1803 does clearly concern article IV of the Providence Chater, Regulation, which it is free and able to legislate upon. There are no Crown laws that are in conflict with the Local Law thus written.

 

In consideration of the above the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Napier, sees fit to conclude;

The Court has reviewed the request, and found the act constitutional. 

Therefore, the Medical Documentation Act of 1803 shall be upheld as local law in application in the Municipality of Providence.

                                                                                                                   

[sergisala 3451]

APPEAL: RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUEST ON THE MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION ACT OF 1803

 

SIR EDWARD GALBRAITH, represented by himself, does hereby file an Appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

To the Right Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court, it is our opinion that the Ruling of the Supreme Court on the Medical Documentation Act of 1803 is unconstitutional and illegal for the following reasons:

 

- On the grounds of law, it is our opinion that the Judiciary Act clearly states that the Rulings of the Supreme Court must be adopted by a majority of Justices en banc and not by a single Justice.

 

- Furthermore, on the grounds of law, it is our opinion that the Central Circuit Court was the competent court to hear the Judicial Review Request filed by the Providence City Solicitor and that the Supreme Court was not competent to hear these proceedings in first instance.

 

- Finally, on the grounds of mistrial, we also believe that the Court did not allow any friends of the Court to submit amicus briefs regarding the constitutionality of the Medical Documentation Act of 1803, violating all the precedents regarding Judicial Review Requests and, therefore, constituting a mistrial.

 

In accordance with statutory law the Rulings issued in first instance, such as this one, can be appealed before the Supreme Court on the grounds of law, mistrial or new facts. 

 

It is the opinion of this party that these circumstances concur and, therefore, we do hereby ask the Supreme Court to revoke the aforementioned Ruling in order to restore Justice in the aforementioned procedure.

 

Signed, 

Sir Edward Galbraith KM J.D. SSE

@Hunwald

@Hunwald

[KamikazeReaper 457]

Ruling based on the appeal