| Retroactive vote changes on Legislator Removals |
|
As per the Charter,
Quote:6. Within the first week of each calendar month, the Chair will remove legislator status from any person no longer maintaining a nation in The South Pacific, or absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month if a minimum of two votes occurred. The Chair may exercise their discretion and not remove legislators under reasonable extenuating circumstances. The first vote of this month took place and was closed before this activity check could take place. While not of a margin sufficient to affect the outcome of the vote, two of its voters lost their status in the check. In the event a Legislator loses their status in the monthly activity check, should votes already cast by the now former Legislator that month be removed, in particular retroactively for already concluded votes?
Whereas Farengeto requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question:
In the event a Legislator loses their status in the monthly activity check, should votes already cast by the now former Legislator that month be removed, in particular retroactively for already concluded votes?
Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.
It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:
Kris Kringle Permanent Justice 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
Your honor and Mr. Chair,
While I do believe that chairs and deputy chairs should be doing their jobs more efficiently (just see my other LQ...), we all must realize that the chairs have lives. With respect to that, I think that their status as a legislator should cease to be so the moment it is possible for that to occur. The reasoning for this is simple: Suppose both the chair and vice chair were on LOA for a month, and a legislator's status expires. What do we do? If this person isn't removed, they may still vote for that month of LOA. This isn't fair. It is therefore my opinion that it should be the shared responsibility of the Chair of the Assembly and Forum Administrators to remove an ill behaved legislator's status. I thank the justice for all the work he does for TSP. Signed,
![[Image: tspsig.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323623854591180801/329130815340412930/tspsig.png) Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance Citizen of The East Pacific Former Positions:
Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA Talon of Firehehlm Munifiex of The Roman Empire ![[Image: rv43j5bZ3p1Rs0A01odvThXy-TLzgwlhUTl_mY9E...66-h654-rw]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rv43j5bZ3p1Rs0A01odvThXy-TLzgwlhUTl_mY9EGkiEks-YKf31JOYzp7pyzeivAZlE_6KpcL0UZes=w1366-h654-rw)
Your honour,
Precedent and best-practice indicates that the loss of Legislator status occurs when the Chair certifies such and effects the change, not at the exact moment when they would have ceased to qualify for such status. Should the Chair discover Legislators who would have lost such status in an earlier activity check, but are now voting and thus maintaining it, it would be unreasonable and unjust for them to lose it, as well as lacking in pragmatism. Further, the court should consider the harm caused by the potential administrative and legal confusion of retroactively nullifying individual votes after the fact. As such, amicus believe that the burden here must lie with the Chair and where they fail to remove a Legislator's status correctly this should have no penalties on the Legislator in question. 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)
Your Honor,
In my capacity as a Forum Administrator, I would like to respond to the amicus brief by rolandarmstrong. The Charter states unequivocally that the Administration Team is not to be given any "responsibilities of a political nature" (Article 9, Section 1). This would preclude the Aministration Team's involvement in determining any member's legislator status. Additionally, in my personal capacity as a legislator, I would like to sign on to the amicus brief by Belschaft. I would also like to point to the precedent set forth in HCLQ1509 (http://tspforums.xyz/thread-2003-post-57...l#pid57901), that citizenship could not be considered removed automatically absent an explicit provision for the automatic removal. While the Charter is different from the one at the time, the basic logic still applies: there is no provision for the automatic removal of legislator status, and so one remains a legislator until the masking is removed by the Chair. For the question of retroactively removing votes, I would encourage the Court to consider this a nonjusticiable question. There is no clear guidance in our body of laws for what to do when a legislator votes on a bill on before the Chair is able to perform their duties. As such, it is a political question of what should the procedure be, and the only body entrusted within the Charter to answer that question is the Assembly itself. Thank you.
I see your point, Glen.
Signed,
Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance Citizen of The East Pacific Former Positions:
Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA Talon of Firehehlm Munifiex of The Roman Empire
The Court kindly requests that interactions between third parties be kept at a minimum, and restricted to responses within the context of amicus curiae briefs.
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 Court thanks the members who submitted amicus curiae briefs and invites them to clarify their views regarding the following:
(09-12-2017, 12:09 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Precedent and best-practice indicates that the loss of Legislator status occurs when the Chair certifies such and effects the change (09-12-2017, 03:51 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I would also like to point to the precedent set forth in HCLQ1509 (http://tspforums.xyz/thread-2003-post-57...l#pid57901), that citizenship could not be considered removed automatically absent an explicit provision for the automatic removal. While the Charter is different from the one at the time, the basic logic still applies: there is no provision for the automatic removal of legislator status, and so one remains a legislator until the masking is removed by the Chair. In particular, the Court has the following questions:
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
Your honour,
It is my feeling that when dealing with this matter it would be appropriate to weigh the burdens involved heavily towards the Chair. Should the Chair determine that someone should no longer be a Legislator, but fail to effect such a change, then it would be unjust to penalise the member so effected. If a member has reason to believe they are a Legislator, and is acting as such in a good faith manner, then it would be perverse to rule otherwise; this would constitute a significant harm to the member, through no fault of their own, especially if the activity of said member during this period would be such to now maintain their Legislator status. I see no good cause for the Chair, having determined that a member no longer qualifies for Legislator status, to delay the implementation of this change and relevant notifications beyond such time as needed for the administration of this. To create a situation where a member may believe that they are a legislator and be acting as such for days or weeks, only to be told that they weren't and that their activities as such are now invalid, seems to be an absurd situation; if due to administrative negligence or failings on the part of the Chair a member should have lost Legislator status prior to discovery of such, I do not believe it would be just or sensible to backdate such; should that member still not meet compliance requirements then it would be logical to end their Legislator status at this point, but if they have returned to compliance I see no reason for them to face penalties. Broadly speaking, where an error occurs due to governmental mistake then the member in question should not face undue consequences for that which was not their fault. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
That assumes, however, that determination is not accompanied by a public notification of loss of status. If the Chair, for any reason, makes such a public notification, but is otherwise kept from making the actual masking changes, would that person still be considered a legislator?
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 "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |