Reuqest for Clarification

In the first opinion of the Court here on this general subject, the Court stated that:

Byardkuria:

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.

Click to expand...

HOWEVER, the Court later stated:

CHIEF JUSTICE GROSSESCHNAUZER:

Accordingly, I would deny the petition, and return this matter to the Regional Assembly to resolve in such manner as it sees fits, or allow the Delegate or his designated Election Commissioners to address the matter.

Click to expand...

As well as an opinion by Associate Justice Romanoffia which called for the striking of the ineligible candidates from any new ballot.

I am unclear as to what judgement justices Grossechnauzer and Romanoffia agreed to, and why Byardkuria's initial post indicated Chief Justice Grosseschnauzer was recusing himself when apparently he wasn't.

The two proceedings were filed separately, by different parties, raising different issues, and were decided independently of one another.

The fact that the earlier-filed case resulted in one recusal was because the issues presented related to whether a specific candidate should have been qualified in the election of the Delegate; and whether another specific candidate should have been qualified in the election of one of the seats on the Council of Lower Officials.

In the second case, the petitioner challenged the right of the other elected members of the CLO to take office before resolution of the third seat, even though their actual qualifications and election had not been challenged. It is coincidence that the same Justice was placed in a position to recuse himself in both proceedings.

Now, concerning the individual opinions of the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Romanoffia in the first case filed. In both instances, these opinions agreed with the judgment of the Court finding that the Court was not constitutionally able ro render a decision. The opinion of the Chief Justice merely express his views on the particular case which is not binding as a result, but merely states his views on the matter. Likewise, Justice Romanoffia's opinion is not binding as a result, but merely expresses his views on the matter as well.

This is really irking me, and I am not sure why I thought bringing a request for a ruling to this court would be something quick. I really should have known better. And there really is no reason why this should not have been a quick decision. The evidence and section from the constitution I quoted were clear cut.

This is a cluster fuck and it is only harming our region. Do we really think this is something that attracts new nations to our region? It sure as hell would not make me want to get involved.

It is already several days into the month of October (I made the initial request on September 18), quite effing ridiculous. Quicker this is resolved the better off we will be. This quagmire is already creating divisions and frustrations are mounting, more and more each day this is dragged on.

my interenet connection is virtually unusable between 6pm and midnight, so I'll have to get back to this in the morning when my mind is more coherent.

Joshua:

This is really irking me, and I am not sure why I thought bringing a request for a ruling to this court would be something quick. I really should have known better. And there really is no reason why this should not have been a quick decision. The evidence and section from the constitution I quoted were clear cut.

This is a cluster fuck and it is only harming our region. Do we really think this is something that attracts new nations to our region? It sure as hell would not make me want to get involved.

It is already several days into the month of October (I made the initial request on September 18), quite effing ridiculous. Quicker this is resolved the better off we will be. This quagmire is already creating divisions and frustrations are mounting, more and more each day this is dragged on.

Click to expand...

Then fix it. The Court did the only thing the Court could ethically do under the Constitution, which was return the matter to the Legislature for a proper solution. I'm sorry if the Swift Hand of Jehovah (tm) was unable to strike down the iniquitous in a sufficiently prompt manner - maybe if we had some sort of appeal process (oops) or a multi-tiered court for judicial review (oops) or a constitution that stayed around for more than six months allowing for these issues to be discovered and ironed out before it becomes a crisis (oops) we would be at a different place today. We don't, and we aren't. When the sum total of law pertaining to the structure and function of the court is shorter than the oath to become an RA member, conflict and ambiguity just might occur, ya know?

I can arbitrate if you wish.

G.M. I just checked and you improperly had a permission mask for the RA which you should not have when you are in the member group. That combination of member group and permission isn't allowed, so I've adjusted it to yuur current member group as a Member.

If you have a current TNP nation you are entitled to the TNP Citizen mask until your application of the RA is acted upon.

Gracius Maximus:

I can arbitrate if you wish.

Click to expand...

He does have a history of speedy resolutions, it is true.

Grosseschnauzer:

G.M. I just checked and you improperly had a permission mask for the RA which you should not have when you are in the member group. That combination of member group and permission isn't allowed, so I've adjusted it to yuur current member group as a Member.

If you have a current TNP nation you are entitled to the TNP Citizen mask until your application of the RA is acted upon.

Click to expand...

I have posted a separate thread for the Court in hopes of addressing this. My application for the Regional Assembly has been on file long enough for any just and constitutional decision to have been reached.

My posting privileges should never have come into question or been truncated since my application should have already been processed fully days ago.

Regardless, this is way off topic for this thread and I am uncertain as to the reason for your bringing it up here.

Byardkuria:

When the sum total of law pertaining to the structure and function of the court is shorter than the oath to become an RA member, conflict and ambiguity just might occur, ya know?

Click to expand...

Hardly.

The Judicial Branch is invested with the powers and obligation to investigate the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws.

Click to expand...

You have the power to decide all questions of constitutionality, and there are no procedural limitations or obstacles to stop you from doing so. The Court is three people that decide if something is constitutional or not, it's that simple. That's your structure and function, and you have all the power necessary to make those decisions.

Heft:

You have the power to decide all questions of constitutionality, and there are no procedural limitations or obstacles to stop you from doing so.

Click to expand...

TNP Constitution:

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...

That just means it's illegal to recuse yourself, if you want to take that approach.

Actually, I would argue that it is impossible to construe part of the Constitution/Legal Code in such a manner as to compel someone to violate another part. But that's how I roll.

Hey, I didn't write it. Haven't read half of it either, so I'm just winging this largely. But where does it say that you are legally required to recuse yourself, and (assuming I'm not blind) why isn't it in the Judicial sections? Especially since I find it really difficult to believe such a clause was included if another clause requiring all three justices to make a decision was also included.