| Executive Action Challenge |
|
Recently, the former Cabinet decided on an Executive Action regarding the recent Minister of Foreign Affairs Election. One of several actions this document declared was that it barred the elected Minister of Foreign Affairs, which is me, from taking his elected seat and declared that elections would be rendered null and void if the High Court could not come up with an appropriate response regarding a legal question surrounding invalid votes during an election.
I was more than willing to wait this crisis out and ignore the dubious legality of the Executive Action, confident that the Courts would rule correctly and justice would prevail. However, the recent crisis in Lazarus has driven me to present this legal question to the High Court so that no future Minister has to deal with being barred from doing his job when his region needs him the most. So with that in mind, I ask these questions to the High Court: 1) Are Executive Actions allowed to bar the winners of an election, as declared by the Election Commissioner, from taking office? 2) Are Executive Actions allowed to invalidate election results? 3) Was the recent Executive Action, cited above, legal? I thank the High Court for their time and efforts.
I would dispute the claim that the Executive Policy prevents the elected Minister from taking their seat, as much as it gives the Court time to determine whether Wolf is indeed the elected Minister. A legal question was filed that was directly relevant to the validity of the EC's certification, so it would be appropriate to allow for that issue to be clarified, before letting either candidate take the seat.
In that regard the Cabinet did not violate the law, but rather was ensuring that it could be faithfully executed. 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
Furthermore, it has come to my attention that this Executive Action expired 01APR2015, when a new Cabinet was appointed.
By all rights, I should be allowed to take my seat as Minister of Foreign Affairs, as the Executive Action that was prevented me from doing so is now invalid.
Executive actions don't expire at the end of a term. Either they're repealed by the next Cabinet or they include a sunset clause. Neither of those is the case here.
While the current Cabinet has been been agreement with the previous executive action, the Cabinet we have also discussed what to do in the case of the Court not ruling.
Seeing that it has been nearly two weeks since the original question was asked, I would strongly urge the court to rule.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(04-08-2015, 05:01 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: While the current Cabinet has been been agreement with the previous executive action, the Cabinet we have also discussed what to do in the case of the Court not ruling. They're in the middle of an election, it seems. If the region is okay with waiting indefinitely to engage in diplomatic relations with other regions as NS continues to be dynamic and conflicts develop, then this is completely fine. However, I do not believe that is the prerogative of the region. Nor do I believe it's correct.
The Cabinet has a foreign policy team per the Executive Action. Furthermore, the Delegate is perfectly capable of conducting diplomacy, and in the event of a possible coup of an ally, should be doing so anyways.
If that's the case, why have we been so slow in responding?
TNP, RIA, Spiritus, and Taijitu have all issued statements supporting the PRL's Government in Exile according to the treaties they have signed while we have had no official or open talks and issued no statement. If I had the authority to act, as the seated Minister of Foreign Affairs, we would have at least issued a statement recognizing that we are aware of the situation and formulating an official response. Yet we have not even done that, something so simple and so basic. The three man team lacks the authority of a legally elected Minister, which I believe I am and believe I am being denied my rightful seat.
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.
For all we know, there's a discussion about Lazarus going on in The Cabinet section of the forum.
Seems like questions to ask the Cabinet in their subforum, Wolf!
-------------- I would like to submit a short amicus brief on this case: The Cabinet's authority to issue this Executive Policy rests within the Charter's Executive Policy clause itself: Quote:6. The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law. The fundamental issue the Cabinet is addressing with its Executive Policy is: what happens when the Election Commissioner commits legally dubious actions, thus rendering the results of an election unclear? The events of this past election have proved themselves too much for our body of legislation. We have no answers to this in our law, which is why there are several issues pending before the Court that would aid the Cabinet in answering that question. As there is no law covering this issue, the Cabinet is well within the limits of its authority to issue the Executive Policy. To claim that Wolf has been denied his rights as the duly elected Minister of Foreign Affairs is to claim that the actions undertaken by Hileville were completely legal, which is question that is currently pending before the Court. Should the Court decide that Hileville's actions were not legal, Wolf would have been sitting as an elected official with no legal authority to do so. The Cabinet's Executive Policy is an appropriate means to ensuring that doesn't happen. Ultimately, this question relies upon how the Court will answer the questions of when citizenship and lost and which officials can revoke citizenship. It is only with those answers can we actually address the merits of this legal question. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |