Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. (Makko Oko): Difference between revisions
m (Makko Oko moved page Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al.(Makko Oko) to Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. (Makko Oko) without leaving a redirect: Author Request) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|subsequent actions = Appeals court judgement upheld, Slaves Act struck down and slavery prohibited for all nationally, slave status of plaintiff revoked, judgement against the government confirmed. | |subsequent actions = Appeals court judgement upheld, Slaves Act struck down and slavery prohibited for all nationally, slave status of plaintiff revoked, judgement against the government confirmed. | ||
|related actions = | |related actions = | ||
|opinions = | |opinions =The court finds the government's actions untenable and against the concepts that the Constitution was created by. The court finds in favor of the plaintiff, keeping the original award amount and striking down the Slaves Act for going against articles 1, 22 and 23 of the Constitution and hereby prohibits slavery for all persons subject to the judgement of this court, and free any slaves such capable by order of this court. Appeals court judgement affirmed, judgement award issued. | ||
|keywords = <!-- {{hlist | }} --> | |keywords = <!-- {{hlist | }} --> | ||
|italic title = | |italic title = | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
The case began after Vanita Marissen, the plaintiff and slave, had requested from [[GCG Entertainment]] some time off to travel to Patolia for their birthday, however, after they declined, they filed a complaint with the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs' Office of Slaves Affairs, who subsequently seized their passport and refused to give it back, with the | The case began after Vanita Marissen, the plaintiff and slave, had requested from [[GCG Entertainment]] some time off to travel to Patolia for their birthday, however, after they declined, they filed a complaint with the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs' Office of Slaves Affairs, who subsequently seized their passport and refused to give it back, with the director of the office, Jay Sicard, reportedly threatening the plaintiff with further punishment if they continued their complaining. | ||
== Decision == | |||
The court ruled 3-2 that the passport seizure was an unjustifiable and unconstitutional prohibition on the freedom of movement. The court went on to say that slavery as a concept went against what the Constitution sought to protect, and that its implementation openly discriminated in a way that violated not only the anti-discrimination clause but also the equal protection clause, therefore banning slavery nationally for all persons. The ruling was in favor of the judgement handed down by the Appellate Court of Appeals, absolving GCG Entertainment of liability whilst punishing both the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs and the Director of the Office of Slaves Affairs, Jay Sicard. | |||
==Effects== | ==Effects== | ||
This case overturned the prior Supreme Court ruling [[ | This case overturned the prior Supreme Court ruling [[Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security]] which happened four years prior, striking down the Slaves Act in full and prohibiting slavery on a national level for all. It was the first case in the empire's history to reinterpret the rights outlined under the Constitution to be something greater than what is defined. It also changed the [[Legality Rule (Makko Oko)|legality rule]] created under said precedent to establish a rationale requirement, meaning that in all future cases heard by both the Supreme Court and the lower courts, they must consider not only if the action/law is justified by the Constitution and other laws but also if it is justified by present-day norms and societal interpretations in other nations. There is also an optional rule in place that determines if an action or law is legal based on its effectiveness. Jay would resign after the ruling, citing "Failures of my image have led to a permanent stain upon my ministry that needs repair". | ||
Finally, a test was created referred to as the [[Process of Rights Test (Makko Oko)|Process of Rights Test]] which also establishes a rationale point of view on all cases dealing with freedoms and civil rights in a constitutional context for a non-citizen. The test came to be from the prohibition of slavery for all, as opposed to just citizens, due to the expansion of the freedoms outlined within it from this court. It helps to determine if a constitutional right is to be applied to non-citizens or not, however it could be applied to rights established under statute. | Finally, a test was created referred to as the [[Process of Rights Test (Makko Oko)|Process of Rights Test]] which also establishes a rationale point of view on all cases dealing with freedoms and civil rights in a constitutional context for a non-citizen. The test came to be from the prohibition of slavery for all, as opposed to just citizens, due to the expansion of the freedoms outlined within it from this court. It helps to determine if a constitutional right is to be applied to non-citizens or not, however it could be applied to rights established under statute. | ||
Revision as of 04:40, 25 April 2024
| Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court, Opposh, NT, Makko Oko |
| Decided | TBD |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Appellate Court of Appeals of Makko Oko |
| Subsequent action(s) | Appeals court judgement upheld, Slaves Act struck down and slavery prohibited for all nationally, slave status of plaintiff revoked, judgement against the government confirmed. |
| Case opinions | |
| The court finds the government's actions untenable and against the concepts that the Constitution was created by. The court finds in favor of the plaintiff, keeping the original award amount and striking down the Slaves Act for going against articles 1, 22 and 23 of the Constitution and hereby prohibits slavery for all persons subject to the judgement of this court, and free any slaves such capable by order of this court. Appeals court judgement affirmed, judgement award issued. | |
| Majority | Aponte, Graham, Gerlach |
| Dissent | Reynolds, Sullivan |
Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Makko Oko on XXX XX, 2027 on the constitutionality of a slaves' passport being seized by the Office of Slaves Affairs.
Background
The case began after Vanita Marissen, the plaintiff and slave, had requested from GCG Entertainment some time off to travel to Patolia for their birthday, however, after they declined, they filed a complaint with the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs' Office of Slaves Affairs, who subsequently seized their passport and refused to give it back, with the director of the office, Jay Sicard, reportedly threatening the plaintiff with further punishment if they continued their complaining.
Decision
The court ruled 3-2 that the passport seizure was an unjustifiable and unconstitutional prohibition on the freedom of movement. The court went on to say that slavery as a concept went against what the Constitution sought to protect, and that its implementation openly discriminated in a way that violated not only the anti-discrimination clause but also the equal protection clause, therefore banning slavery nationally for all persons. The ruling was in favor of the judgement handed down by the Appellate Court of Appeals, absolving GCG Entertainment of liability whilst punishing both the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs and the Director of the Office of Slaves Affairs, Jay Sicard.
Effects
This case overturned the prior Supreme Court ruling Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security which happened four years prior, striking down the Slaves Act in full and prohibiting slavery on a national level for all. It was the first case in the empire's history to reinterpret the rights outlined under the Constitution to be something greater than what is defined. It also changed the legality rule created under said precedent to establish a rationale requirement, meaning that in all future cases heard by both the Supreme Court and the lower courts, they must consider not only if the action/law is justified by the Constitution and other laws but also if it is justified by present-day norms and societal interpretations in other nations. There is also an optional rule in place that determines if an action or law is legal based on its effectiveness. Jay would resign after the ruling, citing "Failures of my image have led to a permanent stain upon my ministry that needs repair".
Finally, a test was created referred to as the Process of Rights Test which also establishes a rationale point of view on all cases dealing with freedoms and civil rights in a constitutional context for a non-citizen. The test came to be from the prohibition of slavery for all, as opposed to just citizens, due to the expansion of the freedoms outlined within it from this court. It helps to determine if a constitutional right is to be applied to non-citizens or not, however it could be applied to rights established under statute.
