Constitutional Appeal Regarding the Illegality of the Office Holder of the Plebis Tribunus Under Article XXV

Appellant

Optimates Fasces

Filed

May 22, 2022

Decided

July 31, 2022

The case

The appellant's argument, then every party's submission, oldest first. Submissions are advisory: the justices read them, they do not count as votes.

No party has pleaded yet.

The bench

Each justice's vote and reasoning, published under their seat number. The court never reveals who sits on it.

• Justice #1 Deny

  The appellant ignores the second part of Article XXV "whether they attack or misguide the national convention, legal texts or integrity."

• Justice #2 Deny

  There was no opposition so I have to vote to deny the appeal based on the fact that there wasn't an opposition

• Justice #3 Uphold

  After considering the Constitution and the submission by Optimates Fasces, I now know my decision.
  
  Article XXV of the Manga Taura Constitution states the following:
  
  “I. No liberal parties would be allowed in the country whether they attack or misguide the national convention, legal texts or integrity.
  II. Whether it comes to elect some illegal party, to This sacrosanct text, it would be categorically forbidden in his absolute value as this text interprets it.”
  
  Article XXV clearly establishes that liberal parties are constitutionally prohibited, and they cannot gain power even through an election. Therefore, I vote to uphold the appeal, and I will support the efforts to uphold the Constitutional ban on New Economic Imperialist Alliance.

• Justice #4 Uphold

  The Appellant claims that Pablo Ruiz, the Plebis Tribunus of Magna Taura, cannot hold office due to the fact that his party, The New Economic Imperialist Alliance (NEIA) would be considered a "liberal party", breaching Article XXV of the Magna Tauran Constitution. Article XXV states that "I. No liberal parties would be allowed in the country whether they attack or misguide the national convention, legal texts or integrity" as well as "II. Whether it comes to elect some illegal party, to this sacrosanct text, it would be categorically forbidden in his absolute value as this text interprets it.". The Constitution explicitly prohibits any liberal parties from being elected in a position of power. However the Constitution does not define what a 'liberal' party is, so the Court would have to define 'liberal' themselves. Liberal parties are parties who promote individual liberties and freedoms whether they are positive or negative freedoms, with the aim of reducing state interference and allowing humans to prosper and grow under their natural rights of life, liberty and property. As the Appellant makes known, the NEIA promotes 'Free Market' and 'Individual Liberty' as two of their core pillars, with the Appellant making the claim that this is sufficient in designating this party a 'liberal' party. Upon further analysis, I concur with this statement. As such whilst the Constitution does not define what a 'liberal' party is, common conventions classify what liberalism is, which under my interpretation, the NEIA adheres to. So, I would have to uphold the appeal as they cannot be allowed to hold positions of power as outlined in Article XXV of the Constitution.

• Justice #6 Uphold

  Article XXV, Section I provides: "No liberal parties would be allowed in the country whether they attack or misguide the national convention, legal texts or integrity." The phrase "whether they attack or misguide..." does not operate as a condition upon which the prohibition depends; rather, it removes any such limitation, in the sense of "regardless of whether or not" they do so. The framers therefore did not prohibit only those liberal parties whose conduct harms the national convention, the legal texts, or the integrity of the state: they prohibited liberal parties as such, irrespective of their conduct. Section II draws the electoral consequence of this prohibition, striking with absolute nullity the election or holding of public office by any such party.
  
  The decisive question before this Court is therefore whether the New Economic Imperialist Alliance, whose representative holds the office of Plebis Tribunus, is a "liberal" party within the meaning the framers gave that term when Article XXV was adopted. An originalist approach requires searching for the ordinary and public meaning the word carried at the relevant time, not a contemporary or contested definition that may have since shifted its content.
  
  The term "liberal," in its classical and oldest sense within political taxonomy, precisely the sense that gave classical liberalism its name, denotes an ideology grounded in free enterprise, private property, competition, and the maximization of individual freedom against state intervention. This is not a strained or expansive reading of the word: it is its primary and historical meaning. NEIA, moreover, conceals nothing about its ideological positioning. Its official platform states, among its core pillars, "Free Market," which the party itself defines as resting on "private ownership and competition," as well as "Individual Liberty," defined as aiming to "maximize personal freedom." These formulations reproduce, almost verbatim, the very definition of classical liberalism. This is not a classification the Court imposes on the party through expansive interpretation, but a self-description the party itself embraces in the terms it chose to present itself to voters.
  
  This Court recalls, as it held in Homeland Alliance v. Saxenheim, that no constitutional provision should be stripped of normative effect by an interpretation that empties it of substance. Refusing to classify as "liberal," within the meaning of Article XXV, a party that enshrines the free market and maximum individual liberty as programmatic pillars would strip that article of any practical effect, since no party would then ever describe itself as "liberal" under the Court's standard, even where its platform faithfully embodies the term's distinguishing traits. Such a reading would turn Article XXV into an empty shell.
  
  This Court notes, as a matter of methodological caution, that the present case is distinguishable from Zorat National Congress v. Zorath, where the Court declined to supply, through judicial construction, a norm that no constitutional provision addressed. Here, by contrast, the text of Article XXV is explicit, categorical, and directly applicable to the facts of this case without any need to invent a standard the framers did not enact. The Court is merely applying a clear textual prohibition to a situation that falls within it without serious ambiguity.
  
  It is nonetheless appropriate to carefully delimit the scope of this judgment. The Court rules only on the question before it, namely the legality of the current holder's occupancy of the office of Plebis Tribunus under Article XXV. It does not rule on the legal existence of the NEIA party as such outside that office, a matter falling within the authority to designate and regulate political parties vested elsewhere in the constitutional order. Nor does it rule on the wisdom of the policy, embodied in Article XXV, of banning liberal parties, the merits of which remain outside its role.
  
  Held:
  
  1. The appeal is granted. The election and holding of the office of Plebis Tribunus by the representative of the New Economic Imperialist Alliance are declared null and void, pursuant to Article XXV, Section II of the Constitution, that party meeting, in light of its official platform centered on the free market and the maximization of individual liberty, the classification of a liberal party within the meaning of Article XXV, Section I.
  
  2. The current holder of the office of Plebis Tribunus is declared ineligible for that office on this ground alone, and is removed from office with immediate effect.
  
  3. The vacancy thereby created shall be filled according to the procedures set out in Article IV, in accordance with the applicable electoral process, subject to the exclusion of the disqualified party under the terms set out in point 1.
  
  4. Nothing in this decision prejudges the legality of the New Economic Imperialist Alliance outside of the present office, nor the wisdom of the constitutional policy banning liberal parties, these questions remaining outside this Court's role and falling, where applicable, to the authorities responsible for regulating political parties.