Deliberations for Blue Wolf Recall Vote Review

Located here http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6895691/1/


At first glance here's how I see it. Half of the TNP voting provisions specifically use phrase "votes cast." The other half doesn't. Grosses' amicus brief basically boils down to "Even though the provisions don't actually say votes cast, we've just been applying that to every one of them." Now, I'm of the mind where intent behind the wording means nothing if the words don't back it up, ie. if it doesn't say "votes cast" then it doesn't mean "votes cast."

I am also of a mind to shake up the status quo in TNP and make people realize what a mess the Constitution and Legal Code is.

So, if we rule against Blue Wolf's motion, we keep the status quo.

If we don't for it, here are the implications: it will effectively change election and RA vote procedure; the court will confirm that the Constitution is the -ultimate- authority in TNP and cannot be contradicted by the Legal Code or RA vote rules; RA Rule 1 (re: counting abstentions) will be ruled invalid with votes that require the entirety of the Assembly.

What do you think?

I go for the 'only of votes cast' option.

Looking at it from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, I don't believe that there's support for that option.

Grimalkin:

Looking at it from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, I don't believe that there's support for that option.

Click to expand...

Is it really reasonable, in an online game in a feeder region, when the RA could be of massive size since anyone can join it, to assume that the entire RA could vote on something? I hardly think its reasonable or that it should be read like that.

It is not our job to determine what is "reasonable." Our job is to interpret these situations in light of the Constitution, and the Constitution clearly states a "supermajority of the Regional Assembly." No where does it use the phrase "votes cast." What the author intended means NOTHING if they do not put that intent into words.

While I agree that it would be "reasonable" to interpret it as "votes cast," I do not believe that it is legal, which the only thing that we are concerned with.

So you both want to shake up the status quo and conform strictly to the wording?

I'm of the belief that wording is flexible and we can't interpret it exactly precisely as written, we need to look to see what the meaning of it is.

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.

There's going to be some fallout no matter what we do

Strictly constitutionally, I see Ag's point, but I don't think that denying EW's proposal is necessarily in support of the status quo. Although we could make that strict interpretation, it will send the signal that any future legal structure of this region is going to have to be even more complex and enumerate even more than our current system.

Looking at how the meaning of the words has grown to be interpreted over time, and, because the authors have played a large part in the Constitution's interpretation and implementation, it seems logical that the intent behind the words was not the strict interpretation that has been discussed. (yes, two different arguments that rarely work together..)

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 Constitution. Half of the provision for voting say "votes cast" and the other half don't. It is entirely unacceptable. And it must be shown that it is by the Justice department doing its job and interpreting the circumstance based on the wording of the Constitution. It is the ultimate authority. If you want a flexible Constitution, then a flexible constitution must be written. Look at the current Constitution and previous ones, and you can see that the intent behind them was to be strict and taken at face value.

If half of the provisions say votes cast and half don't, its entirely unreasonable to say that we should sweepingly say that we must go with the mentality of all and not of simply votes cast.

A constitution in its natural state is flexible and we must realize that.

Perhaps an exact count of how much say 'votes cast' and how many don't would be best.

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 require a plurality vote of the Assembly

Article 1 Section 3 Subsection 9: 9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority of the votes cast by the Assembly.

Article 2 Section 3 Subsection 3: 3. The Assembly may remove any holder of any elected or appointed office or position by a motion of recall approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the Regional Assembly.

Article 2 Section 3 Subsection 4: The Assembly must approve the agreement or treaty by a three-fifths supermajority vote.

Article 2 Section 3 Subsection 6: 6. All bills require a quorum of 30% of the RA.


So it seems I was being generous when I said "half of them." In fact only one mentions "votes cast." If the intent was to interpret as "votes cast" then this would not even be needed, and YET it was included there. Now, is it possible that it was included as a way to vary the language? Perhaps. Maybe the intent behind the author was of the full assembly.

Look at this from a legal standpoint. You have ONE clause that specifies "votes cast" and yet another specifically mentions that BILLS must achieve a quorum. My interpretation is that bills are specifically given more latitude in the number of participants in that only 30% need appear to pass a bill. No such provision exists for elections or recall votes, which are not bills.

While I agree that applying the phrase "votes cast" to all items cited above would be the most expedient and convenient decision, the simple fact of the matter is that what is legal may not be the expedient and convenient decision. And that is what we are trying to decide, what is legal and what is not based upon what this Constitution says.

So here is my opinion:

1) The language specifies that only bills may be passed with a quorum and that elections, aside from the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and recall votes are to be a percentage of the entire Assembly.
2) RA Rule 1 is in violation of procedure as set by the Constitution and is therefore ruled Invalid with the exception of passing bills. Abstentions must be counted as part of the entire Assembly.
3) The recall vote of the Delegate Blue Wolf is declared unconstitutional.

regarding point 2-- it states 'a three fifths supermajority' and neglects 'of votes cast' or 'of the regional assembly'. Sticking with a traditionalist sticky interpretation, if you will, we should say that it could go either way on that.

Therefore point 2 would have to become

2) RA Rule 1 is in violation of procedure as set by the Constitution and is therefore ruled Invalid with the exception of passing bills or approving agreements or treaties. Abstentions must be counted as part of the entire Assembly.





That being said, those that do not post at all, are they counted as abstentions or as not present?

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

"Article 2 Section 3 Subsection 4: The Assembly must approve the agreement or treaty by a three-fifths supermajority vote."

of what? of the assembly? of votes cast?

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 treaties must be approved by a three-fifths supermajority vote of the Assembly" and it would essentially mean the same thing.

I stress again that the job of the Judiciary is to interpret based on how the Constitution is written, and that is what this ruling is based upon.

I vote that we adopt the ruling I laid out.

I suppose.