Suspicions Surrounding the Labor Union Party

Appellant

hahahahah

Filed

June 18, 2021

Decided

Sept. 6, 2021

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.

1. Labor Union Oppose · 15 Aug 2026, 1:54 p.m.

   I agree with National Development parties stance, this is a troll party that is spreading unconfirmed rumors and accusations.

The bench

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

• Justice #1 Deny

  This is a spurious appeal and it is summarily denied. This party should be prevented from bringing such suits in future as this is a waste of the court's time.

• Justice #2 Did not vote
• Justice #3 Deny

  The accused party has since disbanded, this is not a supported feature, and the appellant party is potentially a troll party. So this is not possible

• Justice #4 Deny

  The Appellant launched the appeal on the Paid Annual Leave law, yet their whole argument is around the Labor Union Party and not about the policy in question. The Appellant is seemingly trying to weaponise the Court against political opponent by launching appeals against laws but using the time awarded to them raise suspicions about parties instead of putting forward their notion as to why the Paid Annual Leave is unconstitutional. This is frankly an abuse of the Court, and as such I will vote to deny the appeal.

• Justice #5 Did not vote
• Justice #6 Deny

  Before reaching the merits, this Court must satisfy itself that it has been properly seized of a matter falling within its jurisdiction as defined by Article IV. That article opens the right of appeal to any party who argues either that a law in force is unconstitutional, or that a member of the cabinet or the holder of an elected office is acting illegally, or that a constitutional amendment is invalid. These are the only three grounds this Court is empowered to hear.
  
  Examination of the file reveals a total disconnect between the formal object of the appeal and the content of the appellant's submission. The case summary states that the law being challenged concerns paid annual leave, and that the appellant seeks the removal of any statutory minimum in favor of a purely contractual determination. The appellant's submission, however, contains not a single sentence, not a single argument, relating to paid annual leave, its duration, its supposed constitutional basis, or any textual provision that would require its removal. It deals exclusively with suspicions of electoral manipulation, automated accounts, unauthorized access, and fraud, attributed to a third party, the Labor Union, in connection with its rapid electoral rise.
  
  A petition cannot succeed before this Court merely because its title references a law in force, if its actual content raises no claim of unconstitutionality against that law. The appellant offers no reason why the current four week paid leave regime would exceed the powers granted under the constitutional text, nor does it point to any provision of the Constitution of Sveria that this regime would violate. This Court cannot, on its own initiative, construct a constitutional argument that the appellant itself never raised. It rules only on the grounds submitted to it, not on grounds it might imagine in the appellant's place.
  
  That said, and for the sake of completeness, even if the question were examined as formally framed, the outcome would not differ from the one reached in Liberal Union v. Costavela. The Constitution of Sveria, like that of Costavela, contains no bill of rights, no clause protecting contractual freedom, no provision addressing working conditions. Article XVII grants the Minister of Industry and Trade, appointed by a majority vote of the National Parliament, the power to "Regulate Businesses," stated without qualification or reservation. Setting a statutory minimum for paid leave falls, by its nature, within the regulation of economic activity and employment that this power covers. Nothing in the text allows this Court to treat contractual freedom as a constitutional standard against which such a social policy choice could be measured, any more than it could do so for alcohol regulation in Costavela.
  
  As for the claim the appellant actually developed, namely suspicion of electoral irregularities surrounding the Labor Union party, this too fails to state a claim recognized under Article IV. The appellant does not argue that a law in force is unconstitutional on this basis, nor that a cabinet member or the holder of an elected office is acting illegally. It asks for an investigation to be opened, purely as a precaution, based on suspicions the appellant itself admits are unsupported by any established evidence. A request for an investigation, however legitimate the underlying concern for electoral integrity may appear, is not the same as alleging a specific illegality attributable to an identified person or body, which Article IV requires to open this Court's jurisdiction. Such a request, if pursued, falls to the authorities responsible for regulating political parties as designated under Article VI, not to this Court sitting in constitutional matters.
  
  Held:
  
  1. The appeal is dismissed in its entirety, the appellant having failed to state a cognizable claim of unconstitutionality against the law actually named as the object of the appeal, namely the statutory paid annual leave regime.
  
  2. For the sake of completeness, in the absence of any constitutional provision protecting contractual freedom or limiting the power to regulate economic activity granted without reservation under Article XVII, this Court would in any event lack any textual standard by which to strike down the current statutory paid leave regime.
  
  3. Allegations of possible electoral irregularities surrounding the Labor Union party do not fall within this Court's jurisdiction as defined by Article IV, and are, in any event, unrelated to the object of the appeal as formally filed.
  
  4. Nothing in this decision prejudges the merit, or lack of merit, of the suspicions raised by the appellant against the Labor Union party, a matter that falls outside this Court's role and belongs, if pursued, to the authorities responsible for electoral matters.

• Justice #7 Deny

  BACKGROUND
  The appellant appeals the passage of the Paid Annual Leave law, claiming that the party which proposed it is suspect of illegal electioneering, artificial support, electoral fraud, or similar such activity. In a strict reading of the Severian Constitution, the Supreme Court may only consider whether or not a law is unconstitutional, i.e. in contravention of the text or principles of the Constitution; or that a holder of and office of public trust is acting illegally.
  
  While the specifics of the case are lacking in evidence for the invalidity or fraudulent nature of the party in question, there remains a relevant question of whether or not it is within the Court's power to:
  
  ISSUES
  1. Find that a party is acting fraudulently;
  2. Take action upon finding that a holder of a public office is acting illegally;
  3. Nullify a piece of legislation was proposed by or passed with the support of elected officeholders found by the court to be acting illegally.
  
  HOLDING On Issue 1.
  The Constitution grants the power of appointing judges to the Civil Service, the power of regulating political parties to the Union Parliament, and the power of Head of the Police to the Interior Minister. Either investigation and subsequent indictment from the police service or resolution by Parliament would be necessary for a party to be considered acting "illegally." This responsibility of investigating and finding illegality in the actions of a party is not awarded to the Court.
  
  HOLDING On Issue 2.
  Had Parliament exercised its power of partisan regulation and passed a resolution declaring the Labor Union to be in contravention of statute, the party's officeholders would be acting illegally and therefore subject to consequence by this Court. Further, had the Ministry of Interior and its police officers indicted the party as a criminal organization or its officeholders in particular for statutory crimes, the Court would be within its right to levy sanction, including removal of officeholders.
  
  HOLDING On Issue 3.
  The Constitution does not specifically provide for the overturning of a statute passed through the legal and correct processes even if the party or its officeholders proposing it is later subject to judicial sanction, dissolved, or found through the Supreme Court to be acting illegally. Despite this, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that the judicial authority afforded the court includes the overturning of laws passed by officeholders acting illegally, as the illegal action of an officeholder is in-and-of-itself unconstitutional, poisoning the laws passed by them as invalid as well.
  
  JUDGMENT
  Despite the interesting and meritorious arguments posed by this case, the holding of NO on Issue 1 renders the question moot and removes the responsibility of investigation of a party from the onus of the Court, and thus I vote to DENY the appeal.
  
  [Out-of-character, this seems like a question that should be better directed to game moderators.]