| Executive action: Contested election |
(03-30-2015, 01:22 AM)Todd McCloud Wrote: 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 Challenge accepted: 1.) The Election Act outlines the appointment of an EC. It does not outline the duties or powers the EC has. Elections are covered in The Elections Act, so there is no contradiction of The Charter. 2.) You;re assuming The Cabinet considers their duty secondary. At least, in this matter. Obviously this is false. 3.) The reverse of the situation is irrelevant, because the key element here (Hileville's decision) would be just as controversial. Challenge completed. Next?
I will do the politically incorrect thing and say that, regardless of how I keep replying, you still still oppose this. Because you simply don't like it, are not approaching this with an open mind, and are not being empathetic with those arguing that the election was not properly handled, or the position the Cabinet is in.
You believe the Cabinet should allow Wolf to take the seat. That is your opinion, and it is a legitimate one. However, the one vote that allowed Wolf's election should have been considered, according to some, and that issue is under contention at the High Court. Until such a time that the Court rules one way or the other, you have no legal basis to argue that Wolf is indeed the legitimately-elected Minister of Foreign Affairs, because there is a 50-50 chance that the election might still be a tie. So, what the Cabinet just did is say that we still not benefit either candidate (because, like it or not, officially recognizing Wolf would be benefiting him!), and rather will wait until the judiciary solves all outstanding issues. That is a responsible decision, since we should not be institutionally favoring any candidate, while the election is still being contested. Like it or not, it still is. 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
No. Executive action can't conflict the Code of Laws. Even though the election act is separate from the CoL it was still made part of it by defining and legalizing another bill.
Further, it isn't the EC part that I'm worried about. They completely ignored the fact that the new MoFA take office on 4/1. And that 1 person can't holdup title office. We now have a consortium of 3 taking over FA.
Hile, this action does not conflict with the Code of Laws. Since the certification of the election is being contested, what the Cabinet is saying is that we cannot, at this time, recognise either candidate as the elected Minister of Foreign Affairs. Because, in our view, no Minister has been officially elected yet.
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
The Cabinet isn't legally the body of this Government that recognizes a new Cabinet.
This is insane. What you have just done is set a precedent for the Cabinet to create executive action whenever something happens that they don't like. No matter how you spin it that is what was done.
Rather than preach corruption and subversion, let The High Court do its job.
I noticed how points 1-3 were based on opinion and held no factual backing. Please be advised, for instance, that the The Charter refers to the Code of Laws as the means to carry out elections (3.2.5, for example). The Code of Laws refers to the Election Act as holding "The procedures for all elections in The South Pacific" (1.1), therefore the Election act is to be followed completely. This act grants the following power to the Election Commissioner: "Elections will be run by a member of the forum administration staff, acting as an election commissioner." Run in the sense of oversee and carry out (when applicable, ie, if he's not an administrator he can't mask everyone as a cabinet member once the tallies are officially released). So I don't quite see where this myth of "the EC has no powers" is being perpetuated, for starters.
In this act, the election process is clearly defined. It gives no basis for invalidating processes performed by the EC. It provides no justification for nixing election results based on the outcome of this election. If we're going to accept that "executive action" is more or less kosher so long as the charter doesn't specifically say one can't legally do something, then that's anarchy.
Hilleville withdrew his question from the Court and no one else has asked any question that might resolve the contested status of elections.
I am rather confused as to how the Cabinet believes the election results will be magically smoothed out by the High Court when the Court isn't ruling on them. Specifically, what Court case is the Cabinet referring to? |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |