by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

1

DispatchBulletinOpinion

by The Republic of Democratized Peoples. . 42 reads.

C.R.22

C.R. 22
R U L I N G
--

-


Constitutional Review
.

Opinion Authored by Associate Justice Democratized Peoples.

Background

Cerdenia asked the High Court to determine whether Article II of L.R.55 contradicts the constitutional right to privacy.

Ruling

The High Court rules that Article II of L.R.55 is inconsistent with the constitutional right to privacy to the extent that congressional subpoenas authorized pursuant to Article II of L.R.55 which request personal information or information not connected with any legitimate governmental interest are of no force and effect.

Reasoning
As to the constitutionality of L.R.55. This statute, in itself, does not violate the right to privacy held by Thaecian citizens. It does not require Thaecians to, on its own, turn over any data or divulge any private information in a manner inconsistent with a democratic society. As such we do not grant the remedy that the filing party initially requested, a declaration that Article II of L.R.55 violates the constitutional right to privacy and is therefore of no force and effect.

However, there are legitimate concerns regarding the right to privacy when it comes to power the legislative branch has as a result of this statute to extract information at will. While there are certainly good uses for such a power, and the power itself is not inconsistent with the right to privacy, the High Court must determine a line for when a subpoena is valid and when it is invalid. To do this we must extend the general test the constitution gives us, whether an act or action is justifiable in a free and democratic society, to the specific case of the right to privacy and congressional subpoenas.

In determining this, we must make two broad generalizations. First, that in free and democratic societies in the context of NationStates the state typically has no place investigating the personal lives of the people behind its citizen nations. We believe that this is self-evident. Second, that in free and democratic societies the government should have a legitimate interest in undertaking any restriction of a right as broad as privacy. We draw this from case law in real life jurisdictions, where the legitimate governmental interest test is used to protect against abuses of some rights. We recognize that the test proposed is incredibly broad, and we will have to on a case-by-case basis determine whether or not a subpoena triggers either of these conditions if a case is filed regarding a specific subpoena. However, we can concoct no more specific test, as the right to privacy itself is a broad and undefined right and there are an infinite of circumstances in which it can apply.

Assenting Justices
Chief Justice Sma Cyrillic
Associate Justice The Marconian State
Associate Justice Democratized Peoples

RawReport