Consular Library

The Consular Library, or The Republic of The League Consular Library of Precedents, Opinions, Interpretations, and Et Cetera, is a Consulate archive authorized by Article II, Section II, Clause VII of the Constitution of the Republic in The League. This document houses all of the relevant ruling precedents and opinions on the interpretation of Regional Laws and the Constitution in The League that have not been overturned. The content of these excerpts and decisions are considered extensions of the regional legal codes. Each entry includes a header designating its origin, brief summary of the interpretation, an excerpt or quotation from its official text or writing, and the relevant laws or cases in relation to that entry.

Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 15 October 2019

The Court of Appeals was convened on October 15, 2019 by the Consulate to rule on the issue of laws passed prior to the Council of the Republic.

Ruling

It ruled that "any governmental document passed legislatively prior to Council of the Republic Law 0 on June 8, 2019, that was not reaffirmed by the Council of the Republic in the following processes for legal continuation under the new government is to be considered null, void, and non-standing."

"The Consulate of the Republic has determined that An Act To Create a new Government Puppet is legally valid and should be labelled as CRL#0, and thus The People’s Republic of The Communist Bloc and The Fourth Republic of the League Treaty is technically, by that law, outdated and nullified."

— Chief Consul Quebecshire, October 17, 2019, signed on to by Consul Caezar and Consul Eminople, maintained by the sitting Consulate.

Gagium v. Administration

Main article: Gagium v. Administration

On August 9, 2020, Gagium purchased 3,002,000 Council Delegate Estates after Quebecshire told the Council Delegates to only buy one. After being warned, Gagium sued the Consulate of the Republic. Quebecshire attempted to persuade Gagium to not sue and to settle the matter out of court, but Gagium refused and took the issue to court. The Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case.

First ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled "for ignorance of rules and regulations to be considered a valid defense when accused of a server rule violation, the accused must be able to reasonably and adequately argue that the Consulate had failed to communicate the rule to the public effectively and fairly."

"The channel is new and rules being created for it as issues arise is nothing new, and Gagium was told to cease his behavior prior to being given a bot warning. The warn was not for disobeying a Consulate personally, it was for disobeying them in the context of moderation. You are not entitled to continue that speech. Now, I am willing to overturn the two warns on a singular basis unrelated to the freedom of speech charges levied in regards to the warn - the fact that no appropriateness precedent was yet chosen for the channel."

— Chief Consul Quebecshire, August 9, 2020, signed on to by Consul Eminople and Consul Terranihil.

"It is the opinion of the Court of Appeals to sign on to the above statement published by Quebecshire. The warns delegated to Gagium and Washingtonian Republic will be overturned on the grounds that the rules and intents of the channel were not effectively communicated to the public, and therefore, cannot be properly enforced. While the posts were in violation and therefore consequences did not violate freedom of speech, it is the duty of moderation to make clear the expectations, and thus the warns will be overturned, but the precedent of what is acceptable in the channel will remain as rights to speech were not impeded."

— Chief Consul Quebecshire, August 9, 2020, signed on to by Consul Eminople and Consul Terranihil.

Second Ruling

The Court of Appeals also ruled "disputes over individual warnings in regards to server rules violations are not to be handled in the Court of the Republic unless the court considers the situation to be extreme enough. Individual warnings are to be handled through the relevant server administrative appeals process managed by the Consulate."

"A ruling in line with this stated position would clarify that simple disputes in regards to warns though are not meant to be handled in the Court of the Republic, rather in the police channels, unless deemed to be of extreme nature at the discretion of the court itself. I think that is important to stability while maintaining a balance with openness. Preventing misuse of the court is important as is protecting consistent and fair rule enforcement."

— Chief Consul Quebecshire, August 9, 2020, signed on to by Consul Eminople and Consul Terranihil.

Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 25 November 2020

On November 25, 2020, after a political argument with Quebecshire, Gagium posted what appeared to be a resignation statement in Council Chambers, stating "guys im resigning from the council cuz im apparently a sexist and sexists have no place in regional gov". The Consulate asked Gagium if his resignation was serious or a joke, but he refused to provide a clear answer. The Consulate decided to remove Gagium from his Council Delegate position because of the resignation statement. Gagium then clarified that his resignation was actually a joke. The Consulate convened the Court of Appeals to discuss the legitimacy of Council Delegate resignations.

Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled "designation from a post with authority granted by or deriving from the Constitution in the context of the Council of the Republic constitutes a constitutional-level request to the Consulate. Therefore, the resignation must be done in official channels and accepted by the complete Consulate as an institution. The Consulate also theoretically has the right to explain further rules and expectations for official resignations."

"It is also noted that in order for resignations to be official, they need to be in official government channels for it to be approved by the Consulate. Furthermore, the Consulate retains the authority to specify the expectations for a resignation, as it essentially fulfills a Constitutional request towards the Consulate, at least in the context of the Council of the Republic and institutions deriving from it."

— Consul Eminople, November 25, 2020, signed on to by Chief Consul Quebecshire and Consul Terranihil.

Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 16 December 2020

On December 16, 2020, the Consulate convened the Court of Appeals to discuss the constitutional legality of Council of the Republic Law 17. The issue was whether a constitutional institution (the Consulate or Council) has the authority to make mandates for institutions created the other constitutional institution. CRL#17 was an instance of the Council making mandates for the Server Moderation Team, a Consulate created institution.

Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled "extra-constitutional institutions can only have authorities and mandates added to or taken away from them by the institution from which they derive authority, and all extra-constitutional institutions derive their authority from the Consulate or Council of the Republic. The relationship of the other constitutional institution to the extra-constitutional institution is defined within the parameters of the creating institutions by its own processes by defining such policies."

"Extraconstitutional institutions including but not limited to the Defense Administration, the Server Moderation Team, and Foreign Affairs Department derive their power from the respective constitutional institution that created said institution, whether it be the Council or the Consulate; therefore it is unconstitutional for either the Council or Consulate to endow additional authorities or remove authorities from an extraconstitutional institution created by the other constitutional institution."

— Consul Terranihil, December 16, 2020, signed on to by Chief Consul Quebecshire and Consul Eminople.

Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 17 December 2020

On December 17, 2020, the Consulate convened the Court of Appeals to discuss if the Court can nullify individual clauses of laws that violate the consititution and maintain the legal parts of said law, or if the entire law must be nullified. This issue arose when considering the legality of CRL#17 and if it would be legal for the Court to only remove the clause that violated the consitition (however, it was ruled that the entirity of CRL#17 is unconstitutional).

Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled "it is the expectation of the Consulate to nullify an entire law or legal document, even if the document is considered to only be partially unconstitutional, it cannot simply be edited to have only the unconstitutional parts removed."

"It is the judgement of the Court of Appeals that in the scenario of a policy or law only being partially unconstitutional, that the Consulate must nullify the entire document. Procedures indicate that once voting commences in the Council of the Republic, the entire document is to be treated as a single entity in the context of passage or rejection by the legislature and hypothetical Consular vetoes, therefore it is reasonable to declare that the Court of Appeals cannot reasonably deviate from the expectation that a Council of the Republic Law is a single entity that must be addressed as such in regards to its legitimacy and status."

— Chief Consul Quebecshire, December 17, 2020, signed on to by Consul Eminople and Consul Terranihil.