Emoji u1f384.svg
Merry Christmas from the IIWiki Team! Have a happy new year!

Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security

Revision as of 05:59, 16 February 2024 by Makko Oko (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security
CourtSupreme Court,
Opposh, Makko Oko
DecidedFebruary 5, 2023 (2023-02-05)
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Directive upheld and enforcement begins
Case opinions
Regardless of the government's intention, no law abridges on the executive's right to enact orders and directives on fully legal matters. The right to protection was defined clearly under the Civil Rights Act as "the utmost right to be protected from becoming, or from, crime victims and criminals respectively". The applicability of the Slaves Act when it comes to debt and other matters is equally dealt to prevent discrimination. Directive upheld.
MajorityGiddens, Sullivan, Reynolds, Sparks
DissentGerlach, Aponte, Graham

Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Makko Oko on February 5th, 2023 on a directive of the Ministry of Internal Security mandating that law enforcement agencies capture and return missing slaves.

Background

Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security began after Emperor Conall Solis issued Directive #1 which mandated that law enforcement agencies capture and return missing slaves under the Slaves Act. August Thornton, a civil rights advocate, filed a formal request with the Supreme Court to hear on its constitutionality. They agreed to hear it on January 16th, 2023. This directive came after Order #3 freeing all slaves that didn't fall under the Slaves Act was promulgated by the Emperor on October 20th, 2022.

Effects

This case established the precedent of "not illegal but proceed" when it comes to constitutional interpretations, wherein if the constitution does not say it is illegal, it isn't illegal. This precedent was common of textualists, even though there were none on the court at the time of the ruling, because textualists only analyze the text, and not any context or potential legalities or illegalities surrounding it.

See Also