Search results

I have split these posts from the main Judicial Review thread. There was no personal attack upon you, Govindia. Finding something that you are doing wrong is not personally attacking you.

In light of Govindia's resignation, this hardly seems like an issue anymore; however, the Court will still issue its opinion should this issue ever come up again. The Constitution clearly states that all government officials must maintain any and all "rights and obligations" that membership in...

TNP Nation: the Winter Sidhe WA Nation: Imperial Athens Chief Justice: Hileville Associate Justice 1: Abstain Associate Justice 2: Abstain Attorney General: Grosseschnauzer

Well that's quick. I'll give him till tomorrow to post something then I'll post the ruling.

The Constitution specifically says that being a government official does not negate your responsibilities as a member of the Assembly. It does not provide an exception for the Speaker.

So here's the crux of the issue: Govindia, the current Acting Speaker, has missed 2 consecutive votes in the Assembly, along with a couple of others. When pressed, he stated that he will remove the other members but not himself. You can read the brief here. His defense is that according to...

The Court will review the specifics regarding the actions of the Speaker. Because the Judicial elections will be ending soon, this Court will not consider the question of the 30 day rule. You may bring it up to the new Court should you desire. While the Court deliberates, we invite the Acting...

Wait wait, so Grosse is Judge Dredd now? "I AM THE LAW."

As long as the Cabinet took the oath, as far as I can tell (note: opinion expressed is not official judicial opinion) the appointments are legal.

TNP Nation: The Winter Sidhe WA Nation: Imperial Athens Speaker: Jamie

This is what we call "creating precedence".

Give it a rest already. The Delegate is empowered to choose whom he wants to serve in his cabinet, so it doesn't really fraking matter where he appoints his cabinet. Why don't you let the Delegate do his job and you go take care of your own, Mr. Speaker. Also, this is not the appropriate...

For.

You =/= everyone

Do you have a legal basis for that claim?

I accept my nomination.

You'll also want to take a closer look at the recent Court opinion.

"People have abstained in votes for years" is not a valid defense. The Court looked at the letter of the law. I'm sure some court that comes after will overturn this one, and then some court down the line will overturn it. It's the nature of the judiciary process. The Court has made its...

Abstentions are only defined as not counting as votes in TNP Law 26 with regards to elections and nothing else. There is no such distinction regarding abstentions with relation to everything else the Regional Assembly covers in the Constitution or TNP Law 26. Without such a distinction, the...

This would be correct.

The Court has reached a decision. In reach its decision, the Court looked primarily at all the instances of voting as proscribed in the Constitution. The Court also considered the amicus brief filed by Grosseschnauzer. The Court, however, decided that it was appropriate to follow the letter...

The Court will hear this once the previous request is ruled upon. As this review concerns my actons specifically, I will be recusing myself.

Yes it is ambiguous, but I might argue a strict "of the Assembly" interpretation given the specificity granted to the passing of bills alone, and that the language is similar to the election of the Speaker of the Assembly. You could effectively rearrange the clause to say "Agreements or...

That would be incorrect as passing treaties specifically mentions the Regional Assembly approving the treaty.

Article 1 Section 2 Subsection 1: 1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights may only be changed via constitutional amendment in the form of 75% Assembly approval in a vote lasting seven days. Article 1 Section 3 Subsection 8: 8. Election of the Speaker of the Assembly and Judiciary officials shall...

Again, this is a weighty matter and the Court is still actively deliberating. I can affirm that we will come to a decision before the conclusion of the special election.

I disagree that it will send the message that any other legal structure will have to be complex. It will in fact send a message that the structure will need to be clear and that it is unacceptable to use a varying phrase each separate time if you mean the same thing. Look at the...

Our job is to interpret the law as it is written. Intent only matters if it's written into the words. The meaning comes from what has been written.

Flemingovia, I am removing you from this courtroom and revoking your authorization to post here until such time as this court receives an apology from you.

Counsel is free to come and go as they please. You are not the one on trial, and your pathetic attempt to bait this court isn't going to work.