(07-25-2018, 09:19 AM)Belschaft Wrote:

(07-25-2018, 08:54 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(07-23-2018, 10:55 PM)siames Wrote:

(07-23-2018, 09:28 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Without getting into the particulars of any specific person in the region, as a case might come before the court in the future, it’s not nearly as nebulous as you think, Belschaft. Imki couped TSP, so her actions in Lazarus are irrelevant. She was denied admittance to the CRS under identical language already in the Charter. If she were to apply again, in an alternate reality where a future CRS either doesn’t care or is sympathetic to her actions then, the provision would still apply just the same.

A coup has a definition: a sudden, illegal seizure of power from a government.

Your questions all relate to the *political response* to a coup, rather than the fact (or lack of it) that a regime of laws was overthrown by an individual or group of people. Our political leaders can debate whether or not to respond to a coup, but that doesn’t determine whether or not a coup happened in reality. TSP nearly recognized Funkadelia’s coup and debated doing nothing, because the resistance government was incompetent— that didn’t mean Funkadelia didn’t coup Lazarus, had a different decision been made back then.

Words have meaning in our court of law. Just because you approve of a coup doesn’t mean it’s not a coup, and vice versa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if this would solve that issue, but would a statement stating that would-be candidates can't run for office if they engaged in a coup unless that coup was supported by TSP?

That would require a change to the wording. It’s been standard practice in TSP to not support coups of our allies, however.

At the end of the day, the purpose of a clause like this is to protect TSP. People who coup are likely to coup again— they have no inherent qualms with doing so. If an allied Delegate coups, and we support it, that doesn’t change the fact that they felt just fine ignoring the rule of law and going nuclear. So if that person is also a TSPer and runs for Delegate here, why would they behave any differently? Our democracy can get messy and couping can seem attractive at hard times. Somebody who has couped before is likely to do it again.

A couper supported today doesn’t mean they’ll be on our side next year. Public support doesn’t mean it’s okay. For example, there was plenty of public support when Hileville and Imki couped TSP in order to get rid of me, Kris, and Farengeto. We are today TSP’s Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Associate Justice, and members of the CRS.


@Belschaft: Given your prejudgment of non-justiciability, would you be recusing yourself?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given your prejudgment of justiciability, will you be recusing yourself?

....

Thought not.

I don’t believe “Is X a couper?” is a question the Court can answer; that doesn’t mean that I don’t think the court can rule on this law. I can certainly see several BoR issues with it.

Laws are assumed to be interpretable until the Court is faced with a case where it must determine justiciability. You have pre-judged that you would strike this law down as non-enforceable if it ever came before you, before it even passed, then said you look forward to “cleaning up the mess.”

If we already know the way you’re going to rule, because you’ve pre-announced a ruling prior to any case, that’s bias requiring recusal.

I have said I see no issue with justiciability, as a coup has a defined meaning. I have not pre-determined that I would uphold or strike down any specific application of the Charter, before a case has appeared before our Court. That is no more of a bias than me saying I believe the Bill of Rights is justiciable, even though there’s far more ambiguity there than in this amendment.

I’ve also already mentioned on Discord that I’d likely recuse myself from the initial case of this law being applied, for the record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk