In re Impeachment of Wolf 2020 SDSC 8
In re Impeachment of Wolf 2020 SDSC 8
| Date of judgment | 13th April 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Acting Chief Justice LordDeadlyOwl Acting Justice Ivy Cactus Acting Justice Comstock |
| Held | Impeachment of Wolf was unconstitutional as it violated the right to a fair hearing |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION by Acting Chief Justice LordDeadlyOwl
(with Acting Justices Ivy Cactus and Comstock agreeing)
[1]. The first thing the Supreme court would like to say is that, even though the part of the constitution that was referred to in the review has been removed during the court's "thinking period" the supreme court allows the review to continue. This is due to two things. Firstly, the review being on an act of senate taken before the laws was changed, and is thus outside the scope of this change. Secondly, if proven unconstitutional would invalidate the referendum impeaching Mr. Wolf from his position as Judge.
[2]. The second thing the Supreme Court would like to state is that the petitioner asked to "use the wall texts" in his petition. This, under the court's assessment, meant all wall texts produced regarding judicial reviews at the day of the request, and was following this pasted into the review, on the petitioner's request.
[3]. Several of the petitioner's arguments were irrelevant to the review and will not be deliberated on by the Supreme Court, due to it being a waste of the courts time. The parts the court took into their deliberation is the first two paragraphs that say: "I summon the elemental powers of earth, wind, fire, love, and article 1 section 5 of the Constitution which states: The Senate may impeach any government official for abuse of power, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors by a 2/3 majority vote. As I have not been found guilty by any court for any of the above charges, the impeachment has gone forward unlawfully. Further, it denies my right to a fair hearing under article 26, and it is outside the jurisdiction of the Senate to find me guilty of any crimes or misdemeanours to begin with. If the Senate wish to pursue impeachment if I am later found guilty of any charges, that is their prerogative. However, at this time they have acted outside the scope of their powers. They do not love. They do not care about baby animals. They only wish to impeach. It is all they know and all they wish to know.”
[4]. The court also ignores the respondent's second part named: "Argument to the Senate’s Rights to Make and Pass Legislation & Right to Clarify Law" as it is not related to the case at hand, but rather the petitioners arguments that the court also decided to ignore.
[5]. The court throughout this proceeding will repeatedly bring in evidence and arguments not presented by the petitioner or respondent, this is in accordance with [17] of "appeal of Nighteye vs. LordDeadlyOwl", which establishes the Supreme Court as using an Inquisitorial system.
[6]. The court finds that impeachment is a process that allows the senate and furthermore the people to show displeasure towards a selected individual's actions. This is expressed through the Senate and the people deciding if the given person should be impeached under certain criteria. The court reads the related clause, Article 1 §5 of the constitution as such “The Senate may impeach any government official for abuse of power, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors by a 2/3 majority vote”. The sentence in the courts view says that the senate may impeach any government official on the basis of abuse of power, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This means that the senate and furthermore the people decide if the individual, in this case Mr. Wolf, should be impeached, based on the criteria of their breach of a law, in this case election fraud.
[7]. The Supreme Court finds a second reason as to why impeachments are not inherently political. This is due to the wording of Article 9 §1, §2.3 and §2.4 of the constitution which state that: §1. The Judiciary’s duty is to advocate conflicts between individual citizens, citizens and the government or branches of the government. §2.3. The judiciary shall adjudicate any conflict between any legal entities. §2.4. A legal entity shall be anything or anyone which has any rights defined in acts of Senate or the Constitution. The court finds that impeachment is a conflict between two legal entities (in this case the senate and Mr. Wolf), as the senate has rights defined in the constitution, and so does Mr. Wolf.
[8]. This means that any impeachments has to be advocated by the judiciary, thus making the impeachments not inherently political, and increases the duties of the judiciary
[9]. The court's definition of "adjudicate" is to make a formal judgement on a disputed matter. This judgement could be the result of a trial, or the result of a question, in the same format as warrants are today.
[10]. The Supreme Court finds that the impeachment does not infringe on Article 25 §1 an §2.
- [10.1]. The impeachment does not infringe on §1 as the right to a fair hearing by a competent court, in the courts view, is only logically usable in two areas: 1. After any citizen has been charged with a criminal offence 2. When called for by a citizen. (Mr. Wolf never called for a hearing) Any other use would be impossible to complete as it would impossibly swamp the judiciary.
- [10.2]. The impeachment does not infringe on §2 on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This is due to the wording of the clause - the words "charged with a criminal offence" being key. Why is stated in [12].
[11]. The court also finds that even if these rights were infringed by the impeachment it would be justified under Article 33 §1 that states "The free and lawful exercise of these rights shall never be infringed by the state unless to protect the rights of others, the rights of society as a whole, or the public interest." It is likely not in public interest to have an individual with this strong implications concerning election fraud to sit as judge.
[12]. Deliberation on [10.2]. Article 1 §5 of the constitution states "The Senate may impeach any government official for abuse of power, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors by a 2/3 majority vote." The court finds that this does not count as charging someone with a criminal offence and as such does not require the presumption of innocence. See also [8]
[13]. The court finds that for an impeachment to be valid, as of the findings in [9], a judgement has to be made by a part of the judiciary. The court recommends this process be done in the same format as a warrant. An impeachment request is sent to the Supreme Court by the Senate. The Supreme Court either accepts or denies the impeachment request based on the legal criteria mentioned in [8]. The impeachment then goes to vote in the Senate and then a referendum.
[14]. The Supreme Court recommends the senate to make this an official law - named something by the lines of Impeachment Procedures Act - or similar.
[15]. The court finds that, while Mr. Wolfs impeachment is valid under many arguments, including all arguments brought forward by the petitioner, it was not adjudicated by the judiciary and as such, is unconstitutional. The impeachment referendum must be invalidated, and Mr. Wolf still sits as Judge.
[16]. The Supreme Court also suspects that many other impeachments were similarly unconstitutional, and as such recommends anyone who feel they were subject to an unconstitutional impeachment to appeal it.
