| Executive Action Challenge |
(04-08-2015, 07:58 PM)TAC Wrote: It's easy for you to dismiss the questionable actions during the elections, so don't just unilaterally decide you are the legally elected MoFA. When Justice elections are over, things will probably pick up. At least, I intend to try and move things along, should I be elected. and there may very well be, but nothing has yet come of it. Lazarus is a treaty ally of ours, they deserve better than 24 hours, and counting, of silence, especially in this time of great and historic crisis for what is normally a stable and prosperous region. I never said I get to unilaterally decide anything, TAC, I merely implied it is my firm belief that the Election Commissioner acted correctly and within his authority, and that I should currently be seated as the Minister of Foreign Affairs after a narrow and hard fought win. I, at first, was willing to endure what I viewed as an illegal action by the now former Cabinet, no matter in what light they might have presented it, but I can not do so any longer. I owe it to those who voted for me and to the citizens of The South Pacific to fight what I view as an illegal action by a lame duck and outgoing Cabinet which, by and large, is no longer is in power. To not do so would be neglectful on my part and not befitting of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
(04-08-2015, 08:14 PM)Wolf Wrote: I merely implied it is my firm belief that the Election Commissioner acted correctly and within his authority, and that I should currently be seated as the Minister of Foreign Affairs after a narrow and hard fought win. Wolf, that is the very question that is being contested in the Court! You can't say that you are the legally elected Minister, if the legality of your election is being disputed. I completely understand that you would like to start working as soon as possible, but it may well be that the election was a tie, in which case seating you would be unfair to Glen. If the roles were inverted and Hileville had ruled in favour of Glen, it would be equally unfair to you to seat him without letting the Court to sort out all legal issues. I know that situations are happening that require the attention of the Foreign Minister. I know, I understand it. But for all the criticism that our judiciary gets for not being an effective branch of government, this is the one opportunity they have to prove otherwise, and we need to let them do their job. 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 (04-08-2015, 08:23 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Wolf, that is the very question that is being contested in the Court! That, itself, is a dangerous line of thinking, Kris. We are opening up the door for anyone to challenge any election for any reason and bar the legally elected person from taking their seat until the Court as ruled! What if someone with malicious intent had found some minor infraction in a Conflict of Interest statement, a simple omission of a single position in an otherwise declared region for example, in the winner of a Delegate/Vice Delegate election? Does that mean we delay appointing a Delegate or Vice Delegate until the Court can decide the challenge is absurd and frivolous? No, I intend to close this dangerous can of worms here and now, so that no other elected official has to deal with such vexatious issues in the future.
I think we all understand that this is an unprecedented situation, that requires unprecedented action. I do not believe every election will feature legal challenges that will prevent officials from taking office, particularly since most elections do result in an undisputed winner. In the case of this election the dispute is in who won, since we do not know if legal procedure was followed in certifying the election. Did Hileville really have the power to declare someone is not a citizen?
Let's assume for a moment that the Court rules in your favour. Then you would take office as Minister of Foreign Affairs and you eventually get the added benefit of legitimacy. Nobody can say that you are not the legally elected Minister. However, let's say for a moment that the Court rules the election was a tie. That would mean that you are not the Minister, and that another election is necessary. Either way, we need a ruling to clarify the results of this election. In the end I think we all know the difference between a CoI problem and this situation, particularly since it is quite understandable that someone might simply forget to include something in their disclosure, without any malicious intent. That should not invalidate a whole election. However, our current issue does raise questions about the validity of the results as certified, which is why we need the Court to rule. 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 isn't just any election or any reason. These are very specific and unique circumstances that need to be addressed by The High Court. No amount of impatience will help.
I am, of course, not saying that the Court shouldn't rule, Kris. I completely agree that they should.
However, I am very confident that I should be, right now, the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per the official election results. I am simply submitting this question so that no one in the future can point to this Executive Action, which barred me from taking office until a legal question had been answered, and claim precedent. I think we can all agree that no one wants this extraordinary situation trotted out in the future to argue that a Minister can not be appointed until a legal question regarding their election, no matter how silly that question might be, has been answered.
(04-08-2015, 08:45 PM)Wolf Wrote: I think we can all agree that no one wants this extraordinary situation trotted out in the future to argue that a Minister can not be appointed until a legal question regarding their election, no matter how silly that question might be, has been answered. Indeed. The problem with this situation is that there was a genuine void in the law regarding how to proceed. Executive Policy is precisely the instrument that Cabinets can use when there is a void in the law. I think the action was legal and appropriate for this situation, since it is not clear whether you are the elected Minister. I assume that recent reforms in the Assembly will help us clarify this issue, so that future executive actions will not be necessary. 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
Regardless of recent political events, I would like the court to hear this question as well. I believe our laws clearly lay out the procedures for elections and that this executive action contradicts those very laws.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I don't believe that is the case, SB. There is no law regarding the procedures for contest elections, just as there is no law authorizing the EC to determine who is a citizen. While this executive policy has certain been unpopular and nobody wants to see it happen again (myself included), I believe the Cabinet was well within its rights to regulate situations where no law exists.
Basically, this executive action can't contradict a law that doesn't exist. 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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |