Deliberations

So the question is, is the Delegate legally able to take over the responsibilities of the Attorney General when the judiciary is not active?

Here's my opinion: The writers of the Constitution clearly made the AG a part of the Judiciary which places the office way outside the authority of the Executive.

I don't buy the argument that precedent from one Constitution carries over into another, given all the differences. There's no way to account for what still applies and it would take a lot of legal review to determine if there isn't some minute change in the new constitution that renders the precedent completely invalid.

It would have been more in line with the intention of the constitution for the Delegate to have begun a special election for the Judiciary as opposed to take the power of the judiciary upon himself.

Carrying precedent over makes creating a new constitution useless. I understand the difficulties of dealing with an inactive body, but that does not mean that the authority can be seized in this fashion.

Okay i have a question...

does judiciary refer to the Attorney General *and* the Justices, or just the justices, or just the AG?

My interpretation is that the Judiciary refers to both the Justices and the Attorney General. TNP Law 31 establishes (again, in my interpretation) that the Attorney General is an office of the Judiciary branch.

But then, as your question in the OP is framed, why would the Delegate be able to take over the AG's position if just the justices were inactive.

If the entire judiciary had to be inactive... then what would qualify as inactive?

The question we're discussing is whether or not the Delegate can take over the duties of the Attorney General and the Judiciary branch when there is no Judiciary. The Attorney General at the time was inactive and there were literally no justices.

Grimalkin:

The question we're discussing is whether or not the Delegate can take over the duties of the Attorney General and the Judiciary branch when there is no Judiciary. The Attorney General at the time was inactive and there were literally no justices.

Click to expand...

I see.

I would think that as there are no justices, the delegate taking over the attorney general position would be useless.

I shall read more of the laws tonight.

"Useless" isn't what we're considering. Was it legal? I don't believe it was legal for him to do as the Attorney General is outside the purview of the Executive.

Are we agreed that the delegate's action was unconstitutional? I could probably go ahead and write the court's opinion since Dyr agrees with me.

Yep, in agreement.