Belschaft, in his continued attempt to troll the region through our court, had submitted a legal question that would completely remove the ability of the Cabinet to address security threats. I can't stress enough how dumb that would be, since it's literally the only way we have to protect the region with a neutered CSS.

I think it would be a good idea for the Cabinet to submit a collective brief.

Some points:

- The decision to declare him a security threat was not arbitrary. The Cabinet explained why it was done. It did not simply roll dice.

- There is a clear process for declaring a security threat: a debate and vote among the Cabinet.

- Pointing out the lack of a definition of "security threat" is a red herring. No region that takes its security seriously has a definition, because you can't put security into a neat little box. There are guidelines that can be created to help spot threats, but it is something done necessary on a case by case basis. Regardless, not every phrase in the Charter is defined. Lack of a restrictive definition does not mean use of a power is arbitrary.

Saw it, very quickly read it, will reread tonight when I'm not in a hurry. Don't think there was a lot of merit to his arguments, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are contradictions.

His basic argument is that because there's no restrictive definition of "security threat," the very power itself is a violation of the Bill of Rights' protection against being arbitrarily or discriminatively "prevented from participating." And thus the Court must strike down the Cabinet's authority altogether and reverse all security threat declarations.

This is an important case because it's literally the only power this region has to deal with security. The CSS is completely powerless under the changes Escade pushed through. Article 7 can only be used against groups. If just two people on the court go along with Belschaft, TSP will be a sitting duck. Since this deals with one of the Cabinet's core collective responsibilities, I think it would be a good idea to issue a group amicus brief.

If someone wants to write something up I'll happy sign on.

If not, I suggest we remove his "resident" status and tell him to fuck off.

I can get behind that too (probably prefer issuing a statement of the two options).

I have reread the topic and checked the clauses in question and it is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. I do think the wording in the BoR is not ideal, but for him to say he was kicked out for "arbitrary" reasons is ridiculous. It does come down to if it is arbitrary, and the meaning of that word. The fact the Assembly agreed with the Cabinet decision suggests that it wasn't to me.

Happy if someone else writes any response, got an early start in the morning and need an early night tonight.

(04-22-2015, 06:55 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I can get behind that too (probably prefer issuing a statement of the two options).

I have reread the topic and checked the clauses in question and it is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. I do think the wording in the BoR is not ideal, but for him to say he was kicked out for "arbitrary" reasons is ridiculous. It does come down to if it is arbitrary, and the meaning of that word. The fact the Assembly agreed with the Cabinet decision suggests that it wasn't to me.

Happy if someone else writes any response, got an early start in the morning and need an early night tonight.

Yeah, I've been swamped too, hence why I've been slow to write up something.

I'd also point out his use of OED is ... arbitrary. I mean ... I prefer Merriam-Webster for my legal definitions.