| [LEGAL QUESTION]Joint Candidacy |
|
We have this interesting one going. While I'll have to check for charter evidence on either side, I'm inclined to rule Joint Candidates not to be covered by the current charter.
I'm of this opinion as well. The power of the Court is to rule on laws and legal issues based on the Charter and CoL, not to create laws and precedents out of nowhere just because 'the Charter doesn't say x, therefore the Court shall rule that x is permissible'
Also, I'd suggest that we issue a statement, citing Legal Questions that have been brought before the Court prior to an Assembly discussion, that the Court should not be exploited by members of the community to get what they want, by avoiding discussion in the Assembly. At the end of the day, the High Court is an institution governed by fairness and the rule of law, not a political institution that should be subjected to bias and exploitation.
Bumping this for discussion again now that we have a full Court
I don't see any plurals anywhere in the descriptions of cabinet positions listed in the Charter (i.e. it mentions Minister of XXX, not Ministers of XXX). Based on that, I'd be of the opinion that as it is, the Charter is referring to these positions being for a single candidate, not joint candidates. Seems fairly simple this one.
I have no real issues with your proposed statement, that said, I think Bel wanted a quick response so that he could possibly run for office on a joint ticket at the time, and what he did was more hoping for expediency, rather than trying to avoid assembly discussion (where a vote would not be able to be held in time to run). Still probably not the right thing to do.
I agree. Reading the charter it clearly makes no mention of a plurality of holders for a single cabinet position. I think if it had been intended for their to be joint candidates it would have been legislated to contain such provisions. If anyone wants joint candidates they should bring forward a bill for discussion in the assembly.
I propose the following draft:
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.
That seems to sum it up pretty well.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |