Reference re Treaties 2021 SDSC 4
Reference re Treaties 2021 SDSC 4
| Date of judgment | 29th March 2021 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice Ivy Cactus Justice Syndicality Justice Fermiboson |
| Held | Treaties only have the power to dictate the government in relation to Foreign Affairs, but may be ratified as legislation or a Constitutional Amendment to expand its power. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | Treaties passed solely by the Senate are removed from effect once the legislation establishing them is repealed, 14 Treaties ratified solely by the President may only dictate the government in relation to foreign affairs, and may not overrule legislation, 18 Parliament may expand the power of a treaty by passing them as traditional legislation, 19 |
==
==
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice Ivy Cactus
(with Justice Syndicality and Justice Fermiboson agreeing)
Intro
[1]. The petitioner is seeking a Reference Case into the powers that treaties hold, and what authority they have to overrule or amend other legal authorities.
[2]. Given the entirely inquisitive nature of this case, it was handled without opposing sides, instead, multiple relevant parties were asked to provide their opinion by the Court.
Opinions Provided to the Court
[3]. The petitioner started by explaining power structure in SimDemocracy, Bill of Rights being higher than the Constitution, Constitution higher than law, etc. They then describe that due to the lack of defined power for treaties, treaties could theoretically hold any amount of power below the Constitution.
[4]. They go on to describe the five major options for the power that treaties hold;
4.1 On par with legislation, able to amend or repeal laws without legislative approval;
4.2 Similar to legislation, but only apply to what the government can’t do, as opposed to what the people can’t do (i.e. government can’t prosecute a crime vs. adding a new crime);
4.3 Act as essentially level one executive orders, able to order the government;
4.4 Act as executive orders, but only for the presidential side of the executive;
4.5 No power - treaties exist so that the President doesn’t feel like the position sucks, acting as only roleplay.
[5]. The petitioner then goes on to describe a historically powerful treaty, the Second Memeva Convention. This treaty was passed in “The War Act”, this act allowed for the President to declare war as long as the Senate and consuls agreed, providing that the President follows the Second Memeva Convention.
5.1 They then go on to explain that the treaty was removed about 90 days ago by “The Military Act”, but it is their belief that it still exists as a treaty signs by the president, and as it contains provisions that would fall under options #1 and #2 for the powers that treaties hold, the court must decide if those positions stand or are now mute.
[6]. The petitioner finishes by explaining that the President could use the powers of treaties to unlawfully manipulate law by signing a treaty that overrules a law they don’t like, so the Court needs to be careful.
[7]. On prompt by the Court, the Prime Minister stated “My opinion on treaties is closer to them being like executive orders, the parliament and its decisions should be above any treaties like how executive orders work.”.
On the Memeva Convention
[8]. The petitioner spends a majority of their petition speaking of the Memeva Convention, so the court will address it first.
[9]. First of all, it’s important to address that treaties at the time of the Memeva Convention were even worse defined than they are now, as in there was no official definition. On top of this, who could make treaties was entirely undefined, with no laws pertaining to them and a bare-bones Constitution not mentioning them. The only way for the Court to determine their powers and who had the power to pass them is by examining the few treaties from that era.
[10]. The first treaty the Court could find was “The Alliance” between DemocracyExpirement and SimDemocracy, this alliance was passed by a referendum, seemingly without input from the newly existing Senate or the president.
10.1 This seems to have been done so it was a “Constitutional treaty”, although when Mobilfan was prompted to explain the difference between a normal and constitutional treaty by a DemEx official, he stated that the only difference was that it was harder to repeal.
10.2 Shortly after there was an attempt to expand “The Alliance”, through what Ninjawalrus explains to be “treaty Legislation”, although it seems these expansions never went anywhere.
[11]. Following this, the next treaty which seems to have been ratified was the Memeva Convention, passed by the Senate solely, with the President’s only input being through their Consul, more so than before.
[12]. The next treaty passed seems to have been the alliance with the Communist Cartel, passed by referendum. The President seemingly was the one who started this referendum, Mobil noted that the newly ratified Constitutional Amendment, the “Foreign Affairs Amendment”, stated that “The President shall have the sole authority to negotiate treaties and agreements on /r/SimDemocracy’s behalf. Treaties and Agreements with foreign entities must be approved by a 24-hour public referendum, needing a 2/3 majority.”.
[13]. Through all of this, the common theme seems to be those treaties were solely legislative actions, being passed by the Senate as a law or the people as an amendment. Up until the passing of the Foreign Affairs Amendment, which handed that power to the President and the people via referendum.
[14]. Through this, we can see that at the passing of the Second Memeva Convention the President lacked the power to sign treaties, therefore that power stemmed only from the War Act and subsequent legislation leading up to the Military Act. Due to the President never signing it, at its removal from legislation the Second Memeva Convention was repealed and is no longer under legal effect.
The Power of Treaties
[15]. That being said, the powers that treaties hold at the moment still have yet to be discussed.
[16]. As shown in the examples above, all treaties that would overrule SimDemocracy law were either passed by Parliament or ratified by amendment, the Court believes that the treaty’s powers to do so stemmed directly from the fact that they were passed such as more traditional legislation.
[17]. Given this, it is of the Court’s opinion that traditional treaties can not act as legislation, sole legislative power is handed to the Parliament, as per Part 1, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. Logically following this, a treaty’s powers are restricted to the powers afforded to the President as per Part 2, Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, the section that allows him to sign treaties, that of sole authority to dictate Foreign Affairs.
17.1 Therefore, treaties ratified solely by the President may only dictate interactions with parties outside of SimDemocracy, and may not order the government, unless in accordance with foreign affairs, or overrule laws.
17.2 The President may, of course, use any powers legislatively afforded to them to fulfill the treaty, and order those below them to do so as well, placing treaties under option 4, as the petitioner described above.
[18]. That being said, it logically follows that, just like years ago, the Parliament may choose to ratify a treaty as legislation if they wish for it to dictate laws, or otherwise force the government to do something. If the Parliament chooses to ratify a treaty it would act the same as any other laws, the prime difference being that the President would have to agree, on top of the outside parties that co-sign the treaty. As an extension of this, it could also be passed as a Constitutional Amendment, with all the powers and restrictions that the process entails.
18.1 The Court urges the Parliament to dictate this in legislation somewhere, for ease of clarity and to avoid powers of the Parliament from being unlegislated.
Verdict
[19]. The Second Memeva Convention was only ratified and able to dictate the government because it was passed by the Senate, and thus when it was removed from legislation it was repealed and is no longer binding over SimDemocracy.
[20]. Treaties signed by the President may only dictate the government in terms of foreign affairs.
[21]. The Parliament may choose to ratify a treaty, which would allow it to act as more traditional legislation, able to amend or overrule older laws.
