(03-30-2015, 01:22 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

Todd, I would encourage you to read the statement again, but this time with an open mind and trying not to pick specific words and using them to misrepresent the intent of our action. I will try to address the concerns of your latest post:

• Using the phrase "it is strongly felt" does not mean we used our feelings to violate the law. We believe that the Executive Policy Clause allows us to issue this statement, and further believe that present circumstances require intervention by the Cabinet. To characterize our action as "based on feelings" is inaccurate and oversimplifies our action and intention.
  
• This action does not help Sandaoguo nor does it harm Wolf. Our statement indicates that Wolf will not be recognized as Minister of Foreign Affairs until such a time as all legal issues surrounding this election as solved by the High Court, upon which we will recognize the legitimate Minister, whoever that is.
  
• Election Commissioner Hileville originally asked the High Court is he had the authority to invalidate votes from citizens, if he considered they no longer qualified as such. He later withdrew his question and invalidated a vote. This shows that at the very least he had doubts about the legality of such an action, which in turn casts reasonable doubts over the legitimacy of the certified results. Wolf might be the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but the election might still be a tie. Such a determination still rests with the High Court, and it would not be proper for the Cabinet to recognise someone whose election still is contested.
  

I would like to stress again that the Cabinet did not issue this statement with political or electoral objectives in mind. Our sole concern is the legitimacy of elections and the confidence of this region in its government. Regardless of who is eventually declared the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we want to ensure that such a person enjoys undisputed legitimacy, and that can only be accomplished by giving the High Court enough time to clarify all outstanding legal issues.

Very good, very good. Now please indicate how any of this is permissible in law. Also, please convince me this is exactly what would have happened had Glenn been elected over Wolf, someone who has been rather outspoken and critical of the cabinet lately. Because until such time, this is merely an execercise of 'what can we get away with' and nothing more. There is no legal precedent for this. There is no reason to believe this was done objectively. This is clearly going against what is written in law and demanding that people should be okay with it. How do I know? There was no discussion to kickstart this. No other body of citizens, the court, etc were contacted prior to this ruling. This was a unilateral policy that has no basis in law.