Users browsing this thread:

TAC Saxton · 03-30-2015, 12:55 AM

It stems from the ambiguous nature of the EC and the legality of Hileville's action as EC.
Please don't pretend it isn't relevant when you know full well the controversy surrounding the elections.

I am a Super Villain

Todd McCloud · 03-30-2015, 12:57 AM

So the solution is to toss all your toys out of the pram and completely disregard the law then. In short, proclaiming one's self to be above the law and demanding citizens follow "their rulings".

I'm not seeing that in the charter, can you point out the clause that demonstrates that?

Hileville · 03-30-2015, 12:57 AM

What you are overlooking is the can't contradict the Charter or CoL which this clearly contradicts.

Todd McCloud · 03-30-2015, 01:04 AM

And frankly, everyone should be upset over this. Who won or lost that election is immaterial - the bottom line here is the cabinet has just said, "yeah, those laws you like? Well, we're just going to ignore them and make our own laws. You're cool with that, aren't you?"

If you are, then why have laws in the first place? If you're okay with it, why even have an assembly? Why care what rights and suppositions the law guarantees you as a citizen? Heck, why post here to defend this "ruling"? You wouldn't need to - the cabinet has decided what's best for you. It's not a region of six thousand. It's a region of six.

But if you aren't cool with it, like I am not cool with it, I highly suggest fighting it. This is ridiculousness at its finest, and, regardless of who won or lost, sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and the precedent is the following: the cabinet have the power to make, enforce, and interpret the law. The assembly? It may suggest law. The courts? It may answer legal questions, but it cannot carry out anything it makes a ruling on, especially if it goes against what the cabinet feels like.

Take the level of personal feelings out of it - this is not only against the law, but it is a subversion of the law. You can still like the people here and be against this ruling. If you really cared, and I mean really cared for the region, you'd fight for the Charter, the Laws, and the protection of citizens, and not for some hodgepodge ruling based on feelings that supports one of the cabinet's own and goes against what is written in law and has been voted into law by the citizens of the region.

(This post was last modified: 03-30-2015, 01:06 AM by QuietDad.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-30-2015, 01:06 AM

In the statement, the Cabinet clearly indicates that this measure is to be in place solely while legal issues surrounding the election as solved by the High Court. Our decision is not an attempt to violate our laws, but rather an attempt to ensure that they are properly executed. There are multiple concerns regarding the validity of the election results as certified, and the Cabinet wishes to ensure that whoever is officially invested as Minister of Foreign Affairs is the person legally elected as such.

We believe that ensuring the legitimacy of the results will be good for the region and for whoever is elected, and emphasize that our decision was taken with that purpose in mind.

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

Todd McCloud · 03-30-2015, 01:10 AM

No, this completely contradicts both the Charter and the Election Law. Not only that, but it was specifically stated in the OP that this ruling was based on feelings. Coupled with the fact that this helps one of your own and removes a person who has been an outspoken critic of the body's stumbles, this subversion of both the region and the laws of the region is double-take worthy.

TAC Saxton · 03-30-2015, 01:14 AM

There goes that whole "Cabinet Solidarity" myth. Honestly, I use to think of you as a challenge Todd, but I guess that is no longer the case. Also, it might be a good idea for you not to throw around the word "subversion" so carelessly.

I am a Super Villain

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-30-2015, 01:22 AM

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.

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

(This post was last modified: 03-30-2015, 01:22 AM by sandaoguo.)

Todd McCloud · 03-30-2015, 01:22 AM

(03-30-2015, 01:14 AM)TAC Wrote: There goes that whole "Cabinet Solidarity" myth. Honestly, I use to think of you as a challenge Todd, but I guess that is no longer the case. Also, it might be a good idea for you not to throw around the word "subversion" so carelessly.

Please don't think of me as a challenge in here. That's not my interest. If you're going to let your own personal opinions hold weight in this discussion in lieu of what is written in law, then why even have law in the first place?

And actually, I do have a challenge for you: explain how this ruling 1. Does not contradict what is written in The Election Law or The Charter in any way 2. Does not protect their own at the expense of what has already been followed in law and 3. Would have been done in the exact same fashion had Glenn been declared the winner by Hileville

Todd McCloud · 03-30-2015, 01:29 AM

(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.