Verdict
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
End v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 44
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Redmont Legal Code Act establishes a process whereby the Legal Code Committee has unilateral legislative power.
2. The Act creates an alternate legislative path not authorised by the Constitution.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Redmont Legal Code Act isn't unconstitutional
2. By the passing and assent of this bill, congress and the executive have delegated some power to a committee created by congress.
3. This law should be struck, while maintaining the right for the Government to maintain their constitutional ability to exercise their powers through legislation.
III. THE COURT OPINION
When looking at the Redmont Legal Code Act, The court only found one section which could possible fall under the plaintiff's claim of "unilateral legislative power." Section 5 of the Redmont Legal Code act gives the power to inact and transition to the new Legal Code to congress by motion instead of legislating it through a Bill with presidential assent. This is the section the court will be examining during this verdict.
When looking at the entire legislative process the court found two defining bodies, The Constitution and The Legislative Standards Act. The Constitution mostly defines the "who" in the legislative process as in who are the legislatures and who has the power to veto bills. The LSA on the other hand mostly defines the "how" as in the process that all legislation must follow to become law. It is important to understand that for the longest time, these two pieces of legislation were the same, but since the Constitution Act and other connected acts, the LSA was removed from the Constitution so any contradictions with the LSA does not mean unconstitutional.
When looking at section 5 of the Redmont Legal Code Act its important to look at is it changing the "how" or the "who" when it comes to the legislating process. Are any powers going to change because of this section? The court does not see the powers and who they are granted to by the constitution being changed, Congress still is the Legislature and The president can still grant and veto legislation. The court does see the process to use these powers changing as defined in the LSA. The president in this instances has preemptively approved legistlation by congress instead of the normal legislative process defined in section 10(6) of the LSA.
The next question to answer after the constitionality is what to do with the two equal standing bills contradicting each other. The courts have practice in the past something similar to the Doctrine of Implied repeal, where when two acts contradict the newer one takes power as it implied to repeal/amend the older. An example of this is in zlost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 12. "In terms of chronological order, the Constitutional Repair Act II came first followed by the Electoral Act. This is important because it means that the Electoral Act’s sections could supersede the Constitutional Repair Act II." This court is not saying that the Redmont Legal Code Act is repealing the LSA, but is amending it. The entire Idea of this act creating a new "legal code" to organize legislation is already an amendment on section 11 of the LSA and the court finds that in this and only this instance of implementing the new "legal code", is an amendment to sections 8 and 10 of the LSA defining the Legislative Process.
Therefore this court after determining that the Redmont Legal Code Act is both constitutional and takes affect over the LSA as it essentially amends it, The Redmont Legal Code Act will not be struck as requested by both parties.
IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.
The Federal Court thanks all parties involved. Court is now adjourned.
