Appeal: Denied Case No. 08-2021-23 - Appeal Request

[lawanoesepr]

- Client Name: lawanoesepr
- Counsel Name: lawanoesepr
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: The bill did not get a referendum after being called a constitutional amendment.
- Additional Information:

 

[Westray]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has decided to reject your appeal to re-consider Case No. 08-2021-23.

We believe that the ruling produced in the Federal Court was within the adequate scope of law and justice. This appellant has presented no new facts or evidence in this appeal, but instead re-argued the same points from before. The claims made lack crucial details, both in the filing here and in the Federal Court.

The constitution explicitly specifies that a required referendum is only required "when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change" - the appellant has not mentioned whether this is in relation to either.

If the argument is that this amendment is in violation of the Rights and Freedoms as briefly mentioned in the Federal Court case, it is the view of the Supreme Court, that based on the current facts presented, the amendment is not in violation of such. The Allegiance Act currently only provides a specific justification to Congress on the potential impeachment of an official, and does not appear to limit any right.

It should be the duty of the appellant to ensure they specifically specify what complex change that this amendment is in relation to, and or how it limits a specific constitutional right. In this instance, the appellant has not specified either in detail. Therefore we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal.

The court would like to thank the appellant for their time.