| Legal Question: Powers of the Cabinet re; Treaties |
|
Your honour, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the submission of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will address each of his arguments in turn.
Separation of Powers In this section of his brief the Minister of Foreign affairs argues that he is not granted explicit powers, but rather "all-encompassing responsibility". At no place in the Charter are these words used; further, this argument runs directly contrary to the fact that the Charter does provide a list of explicit powers the Minister is granted. It seems implausible that the Charter was intended to grant the Minister such powers as he seeks. It must also be noted that when addressing the matter of separation of powers the Great Council sought to reduce the power and influence of the executive branch of government, not the legislature. The Chair of the Assembly was removed from Cabinet not to reduce the legislatures power over the executive, but to reduce the Cabinet's power over the executive. It is not logical that as a result of this the Cabinet should be granted new powers at the expense of the legislature. Further, it must be noted that no argument that all powers not explicitly granted in the Charter fall to the legislature has been made; rather, an argument has been made that this single power belongs to the Assembly, treaties being acts of that body. There Is No Voting Requirement for Dissolution The Minister is correct that there was previously an explicit requirement that the Assembly must vote on the dissolution of treaties, and now there is not. What he omits is the fact that this was clearly an oversight, seeing how the matter was never discussed during the great council. We can be even more certain of the fact that it was an oversight, as this power was not granted to any other body. Had it been intended to remove the power from the Assembly and grant it to the Cabinet, then this would obviously occurred; it did not, thus causing the current ambiguity. It can be argued that in the absence of any explicit grant of this power it should devolve back to the body that last held it. The Greater Power Includes The Lesser The Minister's argument that the greater power includes the lesser, whilst not supported in the Charter, does make a certain amount of logical sense. What does not make sense is his argument that dissolving treaties is a lesser power included in the Cabinet's authority. If anything, treaty dissolution should be considered a lesser power of treaty ratification, a power explicitly granted to the Assembly. As it is the vote of the Assembly that brings a treaty into legal force, it follows logically that is also a vote of the Assembly that can remove it from legal force. The Cabinet cannot assert a claim to a lesser power that is logically included in a greater power of another body. The Treaty Says How Its Dissolved Your honour, Article Seven of the Charter refers to the proper manner for the nullification of the treaty and the notification of Balder of this fact. It has no impact on determinations of who in TSP has legal authority to make this notification and how that authority is acquired. An Executive Order Is Not Necessary or Proper Here the Minister argues that there is no legal requirement that the Cabinet follow the Executive Order procedure if it wishes to interpret the law, as it "has an inherent and necessary power to interpret law, because it must interpret it in order to execute it." We would agree with the second part of this statement; it is precisely because the Cabinet must interpret the law that it was granted the power of doing so via Executive Order. Why would the Charter make an explicit grant of this power to the Cabinet if the Cabinet already had this power? Further, the Minister's argument that this additional power applies because "There is no “particular law” for the Cabinet to issue an executive order to clarify" is absurd. This additional power of interpretation seems to have no checks or balances, and apply in cases where there is no law defining an area. It would seem to be the case that the Minister believes the Cabinet has the power to create laws, in effect, so long as the Charter does no explicitly address the area in question. This is self evidently not the case. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
First, I would like to point out that my additional legal question and brief is, in fact, on topic. The question at the heart of this matter is who in the region should have input on a treaty dissolution, whereby I've made the case that the gameside community should have some representation in the matter. Further, I maintain the belief that the gameside community is being obviously, and wrongly, ignored as various offsite factions simple battle for their own power.
However, given the overt hostility presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I officially withdraw my question, and thank the court for their time.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Your Honor, if I may.
To respond briefly to the Petitioner's newest response brief: 1. There is an increasing tendency of the Petitioner to engage in personalization of this case by repeatedly insinuating this is a power-grab by me specifically. For instance, referring to this case as me "seeking" power for myself. This is unbecoming of the dignity of the court. There is a disagreement between the Cabinet and Belschaft. It was the Cabinet that dissolved the Balder treaty, not an individual act by myself. Belschaft, of course, has a long political history of opposing me, which colors his language here. The Petitioner should be reminded that it is the Cabinet that makes executive decisions like this, and not individual Ministers. 2. Separation of powers is simply not compatible with the notion that the Assembly gets to claim it has all powers by default. Until the Assembly manages foreign policy itself, that is an area of executive power. Respondent Roavin speaks eloquently on this subject in his individual response. 3. The Petitioner completely misstates the original brief's theory of executive order authority. In fact, we clearly argue that the Cabinet cannot make new laws. In dissolving the treaty, the Cabinet believed it was self-evident that the lack of a requirement for the Assembly to vote meant a vote was not required. It believed it was self-evident that, absent such a role being laid out for the Assembly in the Charter, the Cabinet has plenary power over foreign policy and that included the power to dissolve treaties. Even if the Cabinet did not believe those things were self-evident, it could not have issued an executive order declaring it has some newfound power of treaty dissolution. That would be creating a new law, but it's exactly what the Petitioner argued in his original filing that the Cabinet must do, and is now arguing that the Cabinet cannot do. If the Cabinet did not believe its power of dissolution was a self-evident part of the greater power to manage foreign policy, then it would have had to propose a Charter amendment. However, it did believe that power was self-evident, and so there was no cause whatsoever to issue any kind of order or to seek any kind of Charter amendment. Executive orders are not short-cuts, and they're not used any time the Cabinet must read and comprehend the Charter. It's a simple matter here that the Petitioner disagrees with the Cabinet's understanding of the law, and the Petitioner's disagreement does not mean the Cabinet was required to issue an executive order. It is not the case that the Cabinet just grabbed a new power for itself with no rooting in the Charter. It believed that the Charter makes foreign policy the explicit domain of the executive branch, and it follows logically from well-established ideas that such power includes the power to dissolve treaties. This is the same logic behind the Cabinet's power to create treaties. The Cabinet has the power to create them, with the Charter specifically saying the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the one to do it, and then requires an Assembly vote for ratifying a treaty. If an Assembly vote requirement existed by the default, as the Petitioner argues it does, then the Charter would not explicitly require a vote to ratify a treaty. If the were to take out the vote requirement for ratification today, then that would mean the Cabinet is able to ratify treaties itself, not that removing the vote requirement means a vote is required. ----- Lastly, I would like to express my dismay at Tsunamy's completely inappropriate remark. It doesn't fit the dignity of this court. We had disagreement on Discord about the appropriateness of his brief. Engaging in character assassination because he doesn't appreciate my disagreement isn't okay. Thank you, Your Honor. Sandaoguo Minister of Foreign Affairs
(07-24-2016, 11:34 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Lastly, I would like to express my dismay at Tsunamy's completely inappropriate remark. It doesn't fit the dignity of this court. We had disagreement on Discord about the appropriateness of his brief. Engaging in character assassination because he doesn't appreciate my disagreement isn't okay. Your Honor, I was merely explaining my logic with withdrawing my question. To say it was done after a hostile exchange on Discord isn't character assassination; it's simply the truth. Once again, I thank the court for their time. -Tsunamy, Delegate of The South Pacific
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Your honor,
I apologize for my contribution to the disorderly state of this thread, but I feel I must reply once more; I will remain brief. The Petitioner, in his response to sandaoguo's brief, states that "treaty dissolution should be considered a lesser power of treaty ratification". This does not follow - neither by strictly interpreting the words according to the Merriam-Webster English dictionary, nor by cursory online search of treaty legalities in other governments. Ratification is a process to formally confirm, while dissolution is a process to terminate or break apart; these are obviously disjunctive terms and as such the Petitioner's claim in that section is invalid. Thank you, -- Roavin ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
As there is no current laws to interpret about dissolutions of treaties in the charter, and there is currently a debate about this matter in the Assembly, the Court has seen to not answer this Legal Question.
Appeals may be made as soon as a Pool of Justices has been chosen. (07-25-2016, 01:07 PM)Feirmont Wrote: As there is no current laws to interpret about dissolutions of treaties in the charter, and there is currently a debate about this matter in the Assembly, the Court has seen to not answer this Legal Question. Honorable Justice, should this be treated as HCLQ 1609 or should we just not give this one a number? Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021 (07-26-2016, 03:15 PM)Omega Wrote:(07-25-2016, 01:07 PM)Feirmont Wrote: As there is no current laws to interpret about dissolutions of treaties in the charter, and there is currently a debate about this matter in the Assembly, the Court has seen to not answer this Legal Question. Dismissed cases are not given a number. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |