Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 01-27-2015, 06:00 PM

Your honors,

Myself and my colleague Henn have agreed, due to similar ideas and objectives for the future of the South Pacific Special Forces, to combine campaigns and run as co-candidates for the Minister of the Army. We believe that together we represent a stronger option for the region and the army, and that competing for votes when we could instead work together is not in the interests of anyone. There is a history of such occurring prior in NS in other regions and organisations, but no direct precedent in TSP.

As such, we ask for an expedited ruling on the legality of running as Co-Candidates, with both our names combined on the ballot and sharing the office. Whilst we can find nothing explicitly providing for such in the Charter or Code of Laws we can also find nothing prohibiting such, and therefore believe this to be legally allowed. Our intention is to jointly hold the office of Co-Minister of the Army, sharing the offices single cabinet vote and splitting the duties of the office.

Thank you,

Signed: Belschaft
Co-Signed: Henn

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-27-2015, 06:13 PM

Esteemed Justices,

I believe it is fairly obvious to all of us that government offices follow the one-official-per-office principle. While Ministers can appoint Deputies and assign numerous responsibilities to them, there cannot be two Ministers serving the same office at the same time.

I must refer to the Charter and the Code of Laws, to support this:

Charter Wrote:2. The senior Cabinet members shall be the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minster of Regional Affairs, Minister of the Army, and Chair of the Assembly.

Our Charter clearly states that there is only one Minister of the Army, just as there is only one Delegate, one Vice Delegate and one of every members of the Cabinet. Certainly the precedent of eleven years of Coalition Government supports this view, since there has always only been one official leading each Ministry.

[quote=Code of Laws]2. Cabinet offices will be voted on separately and be elected by a plurality vote.
This section of the Code of Laws also supports the notion that there can only be one Minister, the candidate that attains the highest number of votes.

Further, the Special Forces Code of Conduct makes references to only one Minister of the Army, while it does make reference to three Generals, which leads us to believe that indeed, there can only be one Minister:

Code of Conduct Wrote:1. The SPSF will be led by the Minister of the Army and a panel of three Generals, herein referred to as the General Corps.

Finally, having a joint ticket for a Minister position violates the spirit of the Charter and all historical precedents established during the last eleven years, as well a common sense regarding elections. I urge the Court to dismiss this Question, based on the obviousness of the answer.[/align]

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 01-27-2015, 06:24 PM

Your honors, there is no domestic precedent in regards to this matter as, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no prior request by citizens to run a joint candidacy.

Minister of the Army is a job title, but beyond citizenship and election there are no established requirements for this job. There is no legal reason why the Minister of the Army cannot be two people holding the office collectively, which is why the amicus brief submitted by Kringalia places such heavy emphasis on the use of the word "the".

I would argue that there is no legal reason why voters cannot be presented with the option to vote for a joint candidacy if they so wish.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 01-27-2015, 06:32 PM by Gordon Freeman.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-27-2015, 06:31 PM

I would argue that precisely because there is no precedent on joint offices, the very concept of it cannot possibly be permissible. Our Charter was written not only in text, but also in spirit, and it is fairly obvious that jointly-held offices are neither in the text nor in the spirit of our laws. The precedent is for one single person to hold one single office, not for multiple citizens to hold one office.

While Belschaft can argue for an amendment to the law, as is his right, it is not reasonable to expect that the law be interpreted to suit his immediate electoral needs.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 01-27-2015, 06:49 PM

Your honors, singly held offices are not in the text of the law either. There is nothing in the Charter or Code of Laws supporting an argument for offices being held by single individuals or by multiple individuals, as this issue is not addressed at all. As such I believe that it is in the spirit of the law to allow the electorate to decide this matter by giving them the chance to vote for a joint candidacy if they so wish.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Unibot~~ · 01-27-2015, 09:33 PM

Singly held offices are expressed in the text everywhere. The language never uses language to describe ministers that could imply multiple Ministers of Armies.

For example,

Quote:2. The senior Cabinet members shall be the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minster of Regional Affairs, Minister of the Army, and Chair of the Assembly.

Minister of the Army, not Ministers of the Army.

**Belschaft** · 01-28-2015, 09:35 PM

Your honours, with voting due to start tomorrow I ask for a quick decision on whether to hear this question or not.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Awe · 01-28-2015, 09:41 PM

The matter is currently under discussion amongst the Justices

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

**Farengeto** · 02-15-2015, 01:32 AM

[Image: HCSeal.png]

HCLQ1501

- 15.02.15 -

Petitioner

Belschaft, Henn

Presiding Justices

Aramanchovia, Awe, Farengeto

Non-Presiding Justice

Hopolis

Your honors,

Myself and my colleague Henn have agreed, due to similar ideas and objectives for the future of the South Pacific Special Forces, to combine campaigns and run as co-candidates for the Minister of the Army. We believe that together we represent a stronger option for the region and the army, and that competing for votes when we could instead work together is not in the interests of anyone. There is a history of such occurring prior in NS in other regions and organisations, but no direct precedent in TSP.

As such, we ask for an expedited ruling on the legality of running as Co-Candidates, with both our names combined on the ballot and sharing the office. Whilst we can find nothing explicitly providing for such in the Charter or Code of Laws we can also find nothing prohibiting such, and therefore believe this to be legally allowed. Our intention is to jointly hold the office of Co-Minister of the Army, sharing the offices single cabinet vote and splitting the duties of the office.

Thank you,

Signed: Belschaft

Co-Signed: Henn

Majority Opinion

Aramanchovia, Awe, Farengeto

After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Belschaft and Henn.

It is in the opinion of the High Court that the Charter does not provide for dual candidacy. Contrary to what the petitioner has stated in the Legal Question, while it is not explicitly stated in the Charter that dual candidacy is not permitted, it is implied to be as such through Article 6, Section 1.2 of the Charter, which states

Quote:The senior Cabinet members shall be the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Regional Affairs, Minister of the Army, and Chair of the Assembly.

As can be seen from the clause quoted above, the singular term 'Minister' is used, as opposed to the plural term 'Ministers', in which case would have provided for the legality of dual candidacy. The use of the singular term implies that only one candidate may be elected to a position, meaning that it does not permit two candidates running on a joint ticket, nor does it provide for splitting of duties between two co-Ministers, unless one of whom is serving in the junior Cabinet as a Deputy Minister.

Furthermore, in Article 1, Section 2.1 of the Code of Laws, it is explicitly stated that only the Delegate and Vice-Delegate positions are elected on a joint ticket.

While there has been precedent of joint candidacy in Ministerial positions in other regions, the High Court believes that until such time that the Assembly codifies provisions for joint candidacy into law, there is no legal basis for joint candidacy in Ministerial positions in the South Pacific. Furthermore, while the High Court notes that it has a duty in clarifying legal ambiguity, it is in the opinion of the High Court that as a sovereign branch of the South Pacific, and being a distinct entity from the Assembly, it is not the place of the High Court to create laws where laws do not exist. That is the job of the Assembly.

Individuals should also refrain from using the Courts as a means of bypassing Assembly discussion, or politicising the Judiciary. It is in the belief of the Justices that the High Court is a sovereign branch of the South Pacific, ultimately accountable to only the people of the South Pacific. Hence, individuals should not expect that the High Court rule in their favour, as rulings are based on what is provided in law, or in rare circumstances, implications and interpretations of what is provided in law to create precedents, as the High Court has done on a few occasions in the past. However, the High Court understands that the petitioner had, in this case, submitted a Legal Question instead of having a discussion in the Assembly due to the urgency of the matter, although this should not be made a precedent nor the norm. The South Pacific prides itself in its democratic values, and individuals, along with branches of the South Pacific, should aim to uphold these values.

(This post was last modified: 02-15-2015, 01:56 AM by Qwert.)

**Belschaft** · 02-15-2015, 02:48 AM

Thank you for your ruling.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES