Users browsing this thread:

Arbiter08 · 05-09-2014, 08:06 PM

(05-09-2014, 07:51 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote:
Quote:Section 2 - Chair of the Assembly and Duties of the Chair.

1. The Assembly will elect a Chair which will be responsible for the administration of all aspects of the drafting, debate, and passage of legislation.
2. The Chair of the Assembly has the clerical duty to maintain the Charter, Code of Laws, and all subsidiary documents, ensuring that all laws comport with proper standards and formatting, and all minor changes made are publicly recorded.
3. The Chair of the Assembly will serve on the Cabinet and act as the Legislative Liaison between the Cabinet and Assembly.
4. The Chair will serve a term lasting four months.
5. Procedures for the election of the Chair must be defined in Code of Laws.

Motion to vote.

Second

**Belschaft** · 05-10-2014, 02:10 AM

(05-09-2014, 07:09 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Bels -- you do not get to get to issue a ruling and then come here to declare GR's previous actions "staggeringly illegal." You cannot make something retroactively illegal.

That's not how the law works Tsu. It was illegal when Glen did it; the Court didn't make it illegal, it already was.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 05-10-2014, 05:47 AM by Gordon Freeman.)

Ditortilla · 05-10-2014, 05:39 AM

So do we currently have a situation where the Charter in place is illegal?

If so can we conclude that the appointments, powers and authority, the procedures and all the legislation passed since the amendment are also illegal?

If so congratulations to GR he has successfully done what Milograd and all the others failed to do, and negated The Coalition!

I know, I know Common Sense means that we should declare the death of The Coalition over such a technicality but as we all know Common Sense has not been legislated and is open to interpretation

#001: Pandoras Box [Distortilla]

The Issue

A lowly bureaucrat riffling through some old paperwork has happened across a rather alarming and disturbing fact: the prime documentation affirming the legitimacy of The Coalition, The Charter was amended illegally sometime ago implying that the region technically has no Government:

The Debate
1. "There is no need to panic," says Tsunamy "we've prepared a new document. All we need to do is ratify it and things will be back to normal"

2. "Give me that!" interrupts Escade, incorrigible as always. "I've got an idea, bear with me for a moment... a few penstrokes here... a few clauses there... finished. Now we can set ourselves up as Lords of The South Pacific in Perpetuity! If we don't have complete control then where's the fun? That's what I say. Oh! It'll stop annoyances like "democracy" and "free speech" getting in the way of us clinging to power and crushing all who oppose us""

3. "Hold on! Don't Ratify it yet! Have you ever heard the saying 'two heads are better than one'?" asks Belschaft, your Minister of Complicating Things. "Well, what if we had SEVERAL? I propose we gather the most senior ministers of TSP to act together as a collective head of state! That's a little more democratic than one person bossing everyone else around. And if we enshrine in the New Charter that Ministers can only be selected from the Citizens Specially Selected list we can ensure stability and security for the region for decades to come!

4. "As if ONE leader isn't oppressive enough!" says Distortilla, a little known representative from one of TSP more obscure nations. "Suddenly we need even more? This is a great opportunity for TSP to lose elitist concepts like 'leaders'. My ma taught me that all nations are born equal and yet even in a modern region like this one person can be named Lord and King of everything. One person should not have that much power! Government policy should be the equal responsibility of all TSP inhabitants."

5. "If we did that, even some crackpot quango would have the same power as the Delegate," argues Kringalia "That's insane. We need strong leadership' to get things accomplished! Have you ever been in a meeting where everyone's opinion is, ugh, 'equal'? They go on for HOURS. HOURS! Believe me, trying to run a government that way will be a massive, fruitless headache. The leader's word is law, and if people don't get that then maybe ejecting them from the region and banning them from the forum will make them think again."

6. "Hold on" pipes a small voice at the back "I know I've only just joined the region, and the forum, and I haven't applied for citizenship, but if The Charter is null and void, and you all derive your powers from it, then isn't the authority that you all claim to also have null and void? And if so, whatever you do will be illegitimate?!"

***Tsunamy*** · 05-10-2014, 08:56 AM

(05-10-2014, 02:10 AM)Belschaft Wrote:
(05-09-2014, 07:09 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Bels -- you do not get to get to issue a ruling and then come here to declare GR's previous actions "staggeringly illegal." You cannot make something retroactively illegal.

That's not how the law works Tsu. It was illegal when Glen did it; the Court didn't make it illegal, it already was.

No -- that is how it works Bels.

The action was not illegal until the court answered Kris' legal question. No where was it written that GR's actions were expressly prohibited until the High Court decided this case.

Further, it is not as though someone brought up criminal charges against GR. Kris was asking a question regarding a current debate. It's not that we can decide how to interpret the law and then go back and blame someone for interpreting the law differently before the court ruled on it.

**Belschaft** · 05-10-2014, 09:24 AM

(05-10-2014, 08:56 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(05-10-2014, 02:10 AM)Belschaft Wrote:
(05-09-2014, 07:09 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Bels -- you do not get to get to issue a ruling and then come here to declare GR's previous actions "staggeringly illegal." You cannot make something retroactively illegal.

That's not how the law works Tsu. It was illegal when Glen did it; the Court didn't make it illegal, it already was.

No -- that is how it works Bels.

The action was not illegal until the court answered Kris' legal question. No where was it written that GR's actions were expressly prohibited until the High Court decided this case.

Further, it is not as though someone brought up criminal charges against GR. Kris was asking a question regarding a current debate. It's not that we can decide how to interpret the law and then go back and blame someone for interpreting the law differently before the court ruled on it.

A central tenet of judicial review is the right of a petitioner to question the legality of the course of action of a governmental authority; Kris didn't do that - he asked about the powers of the CoA in general without referring to a specific incident. But that doesn't effect the nature of judicial review; the Court determines whether or not something is legal according to the law. The Court isn't creating new law, it's interpreting what the law is - and the Courts ruling was, unambiguously, that the Chair does not posses certain powers. Any Chair attempting to assert such powers is acting illegally. That's what Glen did - he asserted a power not granted by the Charter.

The Charter does not work in such a way that only things specifically prohibited are legal - when it comes to the actions of the Government, it possess only such powers enumerated. The Chair has those powers granted to him by the Charter, not all powers not denied to him by it. Further, when Chair Glen had no authority to interpret the law - that is the duty of the Judiciary. Whether or not he "interpreted" the Charter as granting him such powers is irrelevant.

He had no authority to take the actions he did. That makes them illegal, and invalid - someone needs to go back and work out what he changed and fix it, because right now if someone asked a Legal Question about whether or not this is a legally binding document I would have no choice but to say no. Parts of it are different to that enacted to by the Assembly - no one knows what parts - and as such they have no legal weight. As we don't know which parts... you see the problem?

Maybe you think I'm being pedantic, Glen and Escade seem to think I'm being personal, but I don't care. The law is the law, and it must be followed. There is no point having an Assembly, and Courts, and Laws, if they can be ignored on a whim. And so long as I'm Chief Justice I'll do everything I can to enforce the law.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 05-10-2014, 11:55 AM

Actually, Bels, I don't quite think you're being pedantic, although I would agree with the second charge that this seems to be a purely personal crusade.

My point remains -- and will remain -- that you, as the court, do not get to define something as illegal and then go on a witch hunt about what has previously been done. Interpreting the law an creating new law is one in the same, since the Court is deciding how the law can be interpreted.

If the question was "Were GR's actions illegal?" this would be a different question. However, the question asked what was powers does the CoA have? Going forward, the CoA does not have the ability to interpret the law as GR had. However, you also don't have the ability to now suggest that because you interpreted the law as x, something that happened eight months ago is retroactively illegal since the individual did not anticipate how the Court would rule several months later.

To take this a step further, by your logic -- Ditortilla is completely correct. The Charter, Legislature and Judiciary are all null and void, meaning that you don't even have the ability to rule on this topic. None of the do and we should all assume that Kris now our supreme ruler.

**Belschaft** · 05-10-2014, 12:06 PM

The Charter is still in force, as Glen didn't have the power to alter it and therefore it wasn't altered. However, the document currently contained in the legal archives isn't the Charter - there are sections of if that say something different from what was voted on.

It's going to take someone hours to reconstruct the Charter from the voting records, but it's a relatively simple task. And one that has to be done.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

QuietDad · 05-10-2014, 12:06 PM

The court ruled on a question, not a charge. While the Court's ruling has identified illegal actions in the past, no charges have been presented on the illegal act.
I don't think it's in the scope of the court to go hunting every time it makes a ruling to go find every instance in history it happened. If someone has an issue with past behavior of others based on a current ruling, it would be up to the person with the issue to bring up charges.

Sexy Womans from your town

**Belschaft** · 05-10-2014, 12:17 PM

(05-10-2014, 11:55 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: If the question was "Were GR's actions illegal?" this would be a different question. However, the question asked what was powers does the CoA have? Going forward, the CoA does not have the ability to interpret the law as GR had. However, you also don't have the ability to now suggest that because you interpreted the law as x, something that happened eight months ago is retroactively illegal since the individual did not anticipate how the Court would rule several months later.

There's no ambiguity about it; nothing in the Charter grants the Chair the power to alter the Charter. This was the case six months ago, a year ago, three years ago. It was illegal to do such from the very beginning, not because the Court says so but because the Charter says so.

By your argument the Delegate could start banning citizens from the region, but this wouldn't be illegal until the Court ruled that he didn't have the power to do so - all those bannings are legal because they happened before the legal question.

Retroactivity doesn't apply to legal questions, as it relates to what the law *already is* - I don't think you entirely understand how judicial review works.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 05-10-2014, 12:21 PM

(05-10-2014, 12:06 PM)QuietDad Wrote: The court ruled on a question, not a charge. While the Court's ruling has identified illegal actions in the past, no charges have been presented on the illegal act.
I don't think it's in the scope of the court to go hunting every time it makes a ruling to go find every instance in history it happened. If someone has an issue with past behavior of others based on a current ruling, it would be up to the person with the issue to bring up charges.

An action can be illegal without being criminal. If, however, it is established that a certain course of action is illegal then all known incidences of it are also illegal.

At this point in time I'm only aware of one incidence of what we are talking about, and I'm interested.in solving the mess that's caused.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES