Amendment to Law 31 - AG

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
So, I think recent events have shown that the current setup of the AG office has its flaws and also puts the AG into the judiciary rather than executive where you'd normally expect to find it. I'm putting forward an amendment which keeps the direct election of the AG but removes it from the judiciary and allows the executive some control over the AG position.

Personally I'd be more than happy to remove the direct election for the AG and return it to a Delegate-appointed position, so would support such an amendment if that was the Assembly's preferred direction.

Anyway, here it is:


TNP LAW 31
Attorney General

To better serve the region as Chief Prosecutor to prosecute any abuse of power to the fullest extent, the Regional Assembly declares the office of Attorney General be an elected office, to be elected as part of the General Election at the same time as the Justices of the Court of The North Pacific, in the manner provided by Section Two Oneof Law 26.

Section 1:
1) To serve as Attorney General, one must be a member of the Regional Assembly for thirty consecutive days prior to candidacy.
2) One must not have been convicted of any prior charge.

Section 2:
1) The Attorney General is to serve as Chief Prosecutor to all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
2) The Attorney General is to work within the rules adopted by the Court.
3) The Attorney General shall serve for six four months.
4) The Attorney General is a cabinet position and reports to the Delegate.
5)The Delegate may remove the Attorney General from post for cause, in which case the procedure in Section 3, 1) shall be followed.

Section 3:
1) Should the position for the Attorney General become vacant for any reason, the Chief Justice Delegate shall name a replacement for the interim until a special election is held under Section Three Two of Law 26, or until the next regular judicial election.
2) It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting. If for any reason, should the the Attorney General is removed from office for any reason other than subsequent election the original Attorney General willbe unable to complete a pending case, then the interim or elected successor Attorney General shall take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
3) Consistent with paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, the Attorney General may request a presiding judicial officer to issue an emergency order enjoining an actual or intended Executive action pending prompt further proceedings before the Court. A majority of the three-member panel of the Court may thereafter temporarily enjoin an actual or intended Executive action pending final disposition of the matter either by the Court, or otherwise by an expedited vote of the Regional Assembly within parameters proposed in the request by the Attorney General as set by a Court order under such terms as deemed appropriate under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, this bill would complicate things. The Constitution doesn't allow the designation of any Cabinet positions, since that is exclusively committed to Delegate discretion. If we're going to go that route, then we need to (1) grant power to the R.A. to set the composition of the Delegate's Cabinet and (2) have the R.A. actually agree as to what positions ought and need to be in the Cabinet. I don't believe we've ever been able to conclusively settle that issue, and that goes back to 2004.

Further, the real problem in the JAL trial was the Court's failure to follow its own rules, including the rules to appoint temporary judicial officers to serve while there was a vacancy or disqualification, and the failure to promptly start a special election to replace the first Court vacancy. Had those two things happened as they were supposed to, it would not have turned into such a mess.

I don't support putting the Attorney General into the Executive Branch, especially since it would then become a political office and incapable of avoiding partisan pressures in deciding whether or whom to prosecute.

In short, this is a bill that doesn't address the real problem, but serves as an excuse to weaken the independence of the Attorney General in the blatant name of politics.
 
For information, the relevant section of the Constitution:

The authority to formulate and guide regional policy, command the armies, diplomats and intelligence agents in the service of TNP is vested in the Executive Branch. The Executive shall consist of the the Delegate and the Cabinet.

Section 1: Delegate and Vice Delegate

3. The Delegate is responsible to ensure the good governance of the Executive Branch of TNP and may appoint and remove at will executive officers from the Assembly to serve at his pleasure.. Executive officers must maintain membership in the Assembly.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution in this case; I do not see how the amendment I am proposing clashes with the above. It doesn't say the Cabinet is limited to only those executive officers appointed by the Delegate. It doesn’t say that designating offices to be within the cabinet is not allowed, in fact the Cabinet is not mentioned in Section 1, 3 only “executive officers” are mentioned. The Attorney General would be part of the Executive (in the Cabinet) and therefore fit in under the Delegate but you could look at it as if relative to the executive officers appointed by the Delegate, they would be an ex-officio member of the Cabinet.

I don't see that would interfere with the Delegates prerogatives in respect of appointing executive officers and I think your point regarding making the office "political" is factious considering that by virtue of being an elected office it is inherently “political” and therefore open to sway by partisan issues.
 
Deja Vu?

Well, not quite.

I don't think this thread will get quite as long or quite as heated.

Oh, and as the current Attorney General I will abstain from any vote on this matter, although you can probably guess my position.
 
Cute, but utterly irrelevant.



As the chief prosecutor on behalf of the region, the AG belongs to the executive function. The AG represents the government position. It doesn't conflict with the seperation of powers between the judiciary and the executive and this debate has no resemblance to a topic about the hypocrisy of the clique in power here the best part of 5 years ago.
 
Haor Chall:
Cute, but utterly irrelevant.



As the chief prosecutor on behalf of the region, the AG belongs to the executive function. The AG represents the government position. It doesn't conflict with the seperation of powers between the judiciary and the executive and this debate has no resemblance to a topic about the hypocrisy of the clique in power here the best part of 5 years ago.
Click to expand...
I agree.

While the AG may deal with the judicial branch, it has never been and should not be a part of it. It's an executive position.

The roles of the branches of government are simple. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch reviews and interprets the law. Since the AG enforces TNP law, it therefore is part of the executive branch.

By the way, how long do we have to wait to move this to formal discussion?
 
Whilst I'm not entirely happy with my own amendment here, as I think it could do with going further, in the absence of any further debate can we precede to formal discussion please Mr Speaker?
 
Recent test cases have shown that the judiciary do not want the delegate to become involved in their power base of the courts. Therefore, making the AG a cabinet position who can be removed from office by the delgate will certainly be tested in the courts, in which case the justices will bitchslap the delegate again. Let's not annoy the justices. Just in case.
 
If all the offices involved would just follow the already enacted laws and procedure, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If we need to adjust something so that a Court Justice (or at least some one who can act for a justice) is always available, then there is someone on the Court who can oversee the AG.
There's not much reason to think that the Delegate would be any better, in fact, we put the AG in the judiciary because having the Delegate be responsible turned out to be a worse plan.
The first JAL trial was botched from the beginning because for some reason, they chose to handle it as a three-judge panel, and the rules of the Court was clear that a criminal trial was a one judge show, with a three judge panel available to hear appeals if needed.
Hopefully, with this new panel, until the next judicial election, the second trial can be run the way it is supposed to, and be over before those elections take place.
 
Haor Chall, can you clean up your draft bill to use red as well as the strikethrough to show what language you are proposing to strike? (And add bold to both additions and deletions? It's very difficult to read what you are proposing to change the way you have it coded at the moment.

Once you do that, then I'll forward the discussion to formal discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top