Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Non-Partisan Courts Act

[Thatpyrodude 2008]

Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Non-Partisan Courts Act

 

Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

Mr. Adler, former Chief Justice of this Court, filed a request for judicial review asking this court to determine the legality of Section I, Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act. The act lays out a noble goal, to ensure that courts remain non-partisan so that His Imperial Majesty's citizens may have full trust that court’s are not acting with ulterior motives. While Mr. Adler may be a supporter of these goals, he challenges the means in which they were enacted. 

 

The text of Section I is as follows; “Court justices are hereby to be barred from running for or holding a seat within the House of Commons.” Mr. Adler lays out three arguments, which if one is accepted, should lead to the repeal of this section. This Court agrees with Mr. Adler’s first argument, that elections are entirely under the purview of His Imperial Majesty and his delegates. The Edict of Reform, 1763 grants His Imperial Majesty the power of both calling and dismissing Diets at will, through the form of a national election. That was affirmed by This Court in The Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Election Cancellation and Ballot Nullification, and we see no basis to second guess that decision. Furthermore, This Edict forbids the Diet from legislating on the authority of The Crown. 

 

Here, The Diet has legislated on who may or may not participate in The Diet. Declaring who may and may not participate in The Diet remains a function of The Crown, as it has previously set age and property restrictions on electoral participation. The Diet, by adding a restriction, is directly interfering with the rights of The Crown, which is strictly forbidden by the Edict of Reform, 1763. Therefore, Section I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act is in violation of the Edict of Reform. This Court sees no reason to further evaluate the arguments of Mr. Adler.

 

But, this court must make a decision on what to declare invalid. This Court could take the simple approach, striking Section I and leaving the rest of the statute intact. Or, this Court could strike the entirety of the act, going beyond what we were asked to do today. This court will take the latter approach. The creation of legislation is an act of compromise, a legislator works with other legislators to determine each and every word in a bill. The phrasing of bills often results from months of careful negotiation and painstaking discussions. To strike part of a bill and leave the rest intact would upset the compromise that went into the creation of this bill. Without Section I, who is to say that the bill would have passed? This Court can not know, and we are not in the business of guessing what occurred during private negotiations. Therefore, statutes lacking explicit evidence otherwise will be assumed to have been passed in their entirety. Without a part of the bill, the entire bill will cease to exist.

 

Therefore, the Non-Partisan Courts Act is struck down in it’s entirety by this court on the basis of a violation of the Edict of Reform. The House of Commons is unable to legislate on the authority of His Imperial Majesty. Furthermore, this Court will assume an all or nothing approach with statutes unless explicitly stated otherwise within the four corners of the bill.

 

Joined by: ALL

 

[sergisala 3451]

The Solicitor-General would smile as he knew that Justice had been done with this Ruling.