In re: Re-election

B

Byardkuria

TNPer
From Felasia -



I'm requesting the court to hold all re-voting on the election for CLO and Delegate.

Reason: The Council of Lower Officers have no jurisdiction all power that's defined by the constitution to make a decision regarding the reelection. They can only halt the vote or any bill, but in order to start another election, they must draft a legislation to declare a previous result null and void and hold another election and put it to vote by the Regional Assembly.

The decision whether to hold the reelection or not must be decided by either the Judiciary or the Regional Assembly.

I also wishes to request court opinion whether the former CLO who had been elected after the Crimson Government is still responsible for using their power on this order since the current CLO election is still not finished and would like to request that all CLO must also places their consent to any decision in public for easy verification by the RA.

Also with all due respect to Tresville, I'm also requesting the court to ask the Administrator team to remove his delegate mask until election is concluded. Eluvatar is still acting delegate until we recieve a new and legitimate election result.

http://z13.invisionfree.invalid/TNP/index.php?showtopic=4796

QUOTE

I've been informed that the Court has been unable to render a decision on the legality of Tresville's election, in effect also allowing Rhindon Blade to be able to seek re-election. Placing the mess squarely back on our hands.

I have convened the Council of Lower Officers and in a majority vote, they have consented to a revote.


http://z13.invisionfree.invalid/TNP/index.php?showtopic=3979

Article IV: Council of Lower Officers

Section 1: Membership and Powers

1. The Council of Lower Officers (CLO) is to be comprised of the Speaker of the Assembly and three specially-elected members of the Assembly.
2. The CLO is to be given access and speaking privileges within the private Cabinet areas but are not allowed to take part in votes of the Cabinet.
3. The CLO may, with the approval of at least three of the four members, place an emergency temporary halt on any specific action undertaken by the Executive branch.
4. The CLO may vote to immediately bring any piece of legislation to an emergency vote before the Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
I have indicated the Court's receipt of the filing.

First thoughts -

First readthrough, I concur on the first point. There was never a piece of legislation brought to vacate the prior results - in fact, there hasn't been a court ruling on the matter yet. As such, this would appear to be a broad overstepping of the CLO's power.

2nd point, I am not sure about the sitting/new CLO discussion (skimming through this morning), but would say that the CLO decision thing is probably best handled via legislative action, rather than the judiciary dictating procedural matters.
 
First the CLO's ability to initiate emergency votes in the RA is not limited in the Constitution.
Second, the Court is deadlocked in the earlier case. My conclusions is the earlier case are at odds with Roman's and there is no way to resolve the conflict.
Third, in this given the motion, Byard, boith you and I have to recuse ourselves from the case, because this petition challenges the new election in which you are a candidate, as well my the timing of when I took office on the CLO, I don't agree with Felesia's belief that two of the new CLO members can't take office since their election was certified, and there are no disputes concerning them in the elkection.
Since the Constitution requires a three-member panel on questions of constitutionality, and there is no process by which the Court has power to appoint temporary justices (which we had under the previous Constitution).

In ither words, the court has no means to act on the petition.

And in fact, that also applies to Joshua's earlier petition.
 
You would be correct sir.

Maybe if we didn't change the Constitution every six months we could get this whole thing to work.

ANYWHOM.

Obviously, if this goes up, it will blow out the earlier petition as well, so let's all get agreed up beforehand, si?




IN THE MATTER OF

Request for Judicial Review, as filed by Felasia in {link} -

Given the provisions of the TNP Law 1, sections 2 and 3, to wit;

Section 2: Oath of Office

The following Oath of Office shall be required for all Government Officials, as according to Section 1 of this Act:

I, (insert forum username), do hereby solemnly swear that during my duly elected/appointed term as (insert government position), I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of (insert government position), with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
emphasis added


Section 3: Penalties for Violation

1 - This Oath shall be binding on all government officials as previously covered, and violations of said Oath may be ground for indictment of impeachment charges in a legal Court of The North Pacific, pursuant to the guidelines and procedures laid out in Article IV of The North Pacific Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, and the guidelines of The Ministry of Justice.
Click to expand...


Chief Justice GROSSESCHNAUZER, the validity of whose position on the Council of Lower Officers has been called into question by the filing, and

Associate Justice BYARDKURIA, a candidate in the election of the Delegate of the North Pacific,

are left with no alternative but to recuse themselves from this case due to the not insignificant possibility of a conflict of interest, or appearance thereof, in entering any decision affecting these positions and/or elections.

Per Article V, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the North Pacific, to wit:

2. All matters of judicial review to examine the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws are to be brought before the full three-member Judiciary.
Click to expand...

The Court is unable to enter judgement on the request as filed due to an inability to muster the constitutionally required three-member Judiciary.

ENTERED THIS XXX DAY OF XXX

CHIEF JUSTICE GROSSESCHNAUZER
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ROMANOFFIA
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE BYARDKURIA (author)
Click to expand...
 
Re-edit. :pinch:


I think we could take this path. Given this, would appearances be improved if I wrote a dissenting opinion despite essentially agreeing on the decision?
 
I'd suppose that's up to you - I don't know that it's necessary.

I will post the opinion and close the thread tomorrow A.M. (0700 US Central) barring an explicit objection.
 
No problem.

In fact, I'm going to borrow what you wrote as a base Opinion of the Court in the other proceeding filed by Joshua, so Roman and I can add dissenting in part opinions if we wish. I wish, so I will be adding a dissenting in part opinion, so Roman, you need to polish your draft so we can add that in and post that package tomorrow as well.
 
You can edit it up for content and verbiage any way you need to. If you need me to personally polish it up I can get it too you by tomorrow around this time.

(I'm busy writing up an extract on that idiotic senate version of the bail out bill for two US senators I know right now -one Dem, one Rep not even from my state - because they are too lazy to read the bill themselves and none of their staff has enough brains to understand the bill. So, if the Senate version of the bail out goes down in flames it will because the RL Roman has his grubby little mitts all over it. ;D )


R
 
Excellent. I trust your editorial judgment.

(Had to run off for a day or two OOC - Out Of Country - without warning)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top