RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:
ARTICLE I OF THE NON-PARTISAN COURTS ACT
Opinion of the Court as delivered by the Right Honorable Judge Valmoth
The opinion of the Circuit Court, as delivered by the Right Honorable Judge Valmoth, is as follows;
Joseph D. Adler, referred to by the court from this point as Mr. Adler, submitted a request for judicial review on the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768. This was in respect to Section I Article I which states:
1. Court justices are hereby to be barred from running for or holding a seat within the House of Commons.
2. Court justices are to be barred from publicly pledging support for, affirming membership of or endorsing any political party or faction.
1. House of Commons elections are entirely under the purview of the Crown, notwithstanding power delegated to Civil Affairs by it, and therefore the House of Commons may not legislate regarding electoral processes or eligibility.
While the public holds the god given right to vote, it is unable to vote for those deemed ineligible by the Crown. However, the current law prohibiting judges from holding public office was put in place by the Imperial Diet. This is the issue brought to the court by Mr. Adler. In rationalizing the constitutionality of this issue, the court must consider the purpose of the Imperial Diet and where it derives its power from.
The Amendment to the Edict of Reform, 1799 states:
'The Imperial Diet shall be a bicameral legislature concerned with matters of active governance when called to sit by the Crown. This shall primarily be exercised by enactment of legislative bills into law after passage by both houses (barring those limited in Section IV of this edict.)'
'When passed by both chambers, the bill proceeds to the Crown, which either grants, withholds or withholds conditionally imperial assent.'
This court finds this language clear. The Imperial Diet is the arm of the Crown which is responsible for passing laws. In order for a law to be passed, it proceeds to the Crown which can either grant, withhold, or conditionally withhold imperial assent. When the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768 was passed, it was granted assent by the Crown. Should the Crown have found this an encroachment on its power, it could have withheld assent. In interpreting the Crown's intention, this court finds that the Imperial Diet could place restrictions on a judge's ability to hold public office.
2. Elections are to be run by the Director of Civil Affairs, who is not responsible to them in the execution of his duties as Director. Therefore any legislation which attempts to compel him to run them in a certain manner is unlawful.
Mr. Adler asserts that the Director of Civil Affairs is not responsible to the Imperial Diet for the way in which they perform their duties.
As brought to the court by Mr. Adler, Amendments to the Edict of Pompourelia, 1798 states:
'That the Director of the Department of Civil Affairs be appointed and dismissed solely at the prerogative of the Crown, subject to no confirmation or responsibility to the Imperial Diet, and be invested with tenure in their office.'
This court agrees with Mr. Adler, and the law, that the Director of Civil Affairs should not be responsible to the Imperial Diet for the way in which they perform their duties. The Director of Civil Affairs is meant to act as a non-partisan arbiter of elections as a way for the Crown to execute elections without undue influence. The Director of Civil affairs is meant to be another extension of the Crown and, unless stated so by the Crown itself, should not have their duties questioned by the Imperial Diet. However, unless the laws regulate how the Director of Civil Affairs must conduct these elections, they are still subject to the laws of this land. Section I Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768, and the act as a whole, places no regulations on how the Director of Civil Affairs must conduct himself. This Act merely regulates who can participate, not how they are elected. For these reasons, this court finds no issue.
3. An unrestricted capability of the Diet to legislate who may be elected to it would place an undue burden on a citizen's right to vote.
Mr. Adler finally seeks to found unconstitutionality on the grounds that placing such a restriction on judges places an undue burden on the right to vote; more specifically, the right of citizens to choose who they elect. The concern of the petitioner is that the Imperial Diet would gain unrestricted power to regulate who can be elected. To illustrate this, Mr. Adler provides an example of the Imperial Diet naming specific individuals as the only citizens eligible for election. Mr. Adler further asks for a constitutional limit to be placed as to who can be barred from election. To examine this, the court must consider when restrictions are constitutionally able to be placed on citizens.
Mr. Adler provides reference to the ORC as follows,
'301.041 - Citizens of the nation shall maintain the right to suffrage in national elections.'
Every individual citizen has the right to vote. Any restriction placed on this is clearly unconstitutional and must be struck down by the courts. That is not the issue of this case, however. The issue here is one of checks and balances in government. The purpose of the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768 was to places checks and balances on the Imperial Courts and Diet. Each of these branches should remain separate from one another in order to maintain impartiality. Should a judge be allowed to hold both a court position as well as a position in the Imperial Diet, that individual would be able to both create an interpret the laws. This can not be allowed. As for Mr. Adler's concern on the Imperial Diet's ability to restrict others from being elected, this court cannot judge hypotheticals. Such cases must be judged on an individual basis when they are brought before the court. Therefore, the law shall remain unchanged.