Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 02-14-2016, 08:19 PM

I would hardly call this a constitutional crisis; it's a simple appeal. Since when did an appeal become a constitutional crisis?

My argument is relatively simple; that common sense should take precedent over legal pedantry. I would not call that a special exemption, but rather a contrasting theory of how the court should rule on legal matters - intent over letter.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 02-14-2016, 08:23 PM

(02-14-2016, 08:19 PM)Bels chaft Wrote: My argument is relatively simple; that common sense should take precedent over legal pedantry. I would not call that a special exemption, but rather a contrasting theory of how the court should rule on legal matters - intent over letter.

"common sense" is an irrelevant phrase. What you suggest is quite clearly not in the laws, nor are non-citizen candidates in the intent of the law.

**Belschaft** · 02-14-2016, 08:29 PM

(02-14-2016, 08:23 PM)Farengeto Wrote:
(02-14-2016, 08:19 PM)Bels chaft Wrote: My argument is relatively simple; that common sense should take precedent over legal pedantry. I would not call that a special exemption, but rather a contrasting theory of how the court should rule on legal matters - intent over letter.

"common sense" is an irrelevant phrase. What you suggest is quite clearly not in the laws, nor are non-citizen candidates in the intent of the law.

The intent of the law is that only citizens can participate in elections, but the letter of the law was not written with my situation in mind; either the issue regarding assembly revocation of security threat designation, nor the extremely minor scheduling problem in regards to when Awe and Elu opened their respective threads. There are multiple theories of judicial interpretation, and the strict constructionism you used is not the only valid one. A broader intent based interpretation could easily conclude that according to the basic principle of common sense, and in the belief that maximising participation is a desirable outcome, that allowing my entry on to the ballot is within the remit of the law.

Your decision to ignore the issues of context and intent in favour of a strict interpretation based solely on the wording of the law is by no means the only possible judicial opinion on this matter.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Punchwood · 02-14-2016, 08:35 PM

I believe this is called thread-jacking. The law is not very clear on this situation and you are going to view it as you want to view it. Can Feirmont just agree with Farengeto as we know he is going and then we can simply vote RON in the election and then Bel can run. Because we are not going to get a result here.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Feirmont · 02-14-2016, 08:56 PM

(02-14-2016, 08:35 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I believe this is called thread-jacking. The law is not very clear on this situation and you are going to view it as you want to view it. Can Feirmont just agree with Farengeto as we know he is going and then we can simply vote RON in the election and then Bel can run. Because we are not going to get a result here.

I believe I have recused myself. Perhaps you have missed it?

#EC4Lyfe

Previous Positions

Lord Ravenclaw · 02-14-2016, 08:57 PM

(02-14-2016, 08:35 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I believe this is called thread-jacking. The law is not very clear on this situation and you are going to view it as you want to view it. Can Feirmont just agree with Farengeto as we know he is going and then we can simply vote RON in the election and then Bel can run. Because we are not going to get a result here.

You have definitely missed something.

[Image: R3G1C7X.gif] [Image: aPo7ydn.png?1] [Image: R3G1C7X.gif]

**Belschaft** · 02-14-2016, 08:59 PM

Ok, I would like to point out that Justice Farengeto has just declared his candidacy in the election he has bared me from running in.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 02-14-2016, 09:02 PM

Since I do not foresee any relevant discussion to this case until an Appellate is appointed, I'm locking this thread until one can be appointed.

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-06-2021, 12:31 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[1606.HA] APPEAL OF [1605.HQ] ON CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY
SUBMISSION 14 FEBRUARY 2016 | JUSTICIABILITY 04 MARCH 2021

Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows:

DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY
This case is not found justiciable.

SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR AN IN-CHAMBERS OPINION
Interested parties may request the Chief Justice to provide an opinion with the reasons that led to this determination no later than 14 March 2021 10:00 UTC.

It is so ordered.

1606.HA.DJ | Issued 06 March 2021

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