Your Honors,

These questions are necessary to answer due to the ambiguities caused by the Assembly's delegation of rule-making authority to OWL itself. Because these rules are not debated and ratified by the Assembly, there's no legislative history to answer questions of their intended meaning. OWL's currently rules state that they "will" hold the recommendation votes, and if that's the case and these votes aren't held, there's a question of if legal or political remedy is available. I don't believe a plaintiff can seek legal remedy in the Court, such as an order for OWL to begin the recommendation vote process on a resolution, without first having a clear legal understanding of if OWL's self-promulgated rules actually mandate that process for every resolution.

For the second part of this legal questions, I believe it is necessary for the Court to reach a decision due to the ambiguity of what overriding "a vote on a World Assembly resolution" means. A Cabinet that would rather stymie debate on a resolution they have a position on, but would rather avoid publicly issuing an override for political reasons, could attempt to use their power to stop the recommendation voting process in the first place. That way they would avoid needing to override the recommendation if it goes the opposite direction of their preference. Although I believe the meaning is clear, the clause in question doesn't use the same type of wording as other parts of the World Assembly Act -- i.e. doesn't say the Cabinet overrides an OWL recommendation, to match all other clauses that discuss the Delegate's vote in terms of OWL's recommendation -- which can raise abusable ambiguities if not legally clarified.

Thank you.