Request for Review: Are SC members government officials

They are already answered.

If what GM quoted doesn't answer it for you, not much else I can say that will assist your understanding.
 
punk d:
They are already answered.

If what GM quoted doesn't answer it for you, not much else I can say that will assist your understanding.
Click to expand...
No, seriously. A numbered list of yes's and no's would assist my understanding.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
punk d:
They are already answered.

If what GM quoted doesn't answer it for you, not much else I can say that will assist your understanding.
Click to expand...
No, seriously. A numbered list of yes's and no's would assist my understanding.
Click to expand...
Seconded.

I'd also like to note that the quote GM provided failed to answer questions 5, 6, and 7.
 
Clarification on 'Deputy Ministers' - In functional, legal and constitutional terms, each ministry, for better or worse, is largely an autonomous affair. From that point of view, a minister can choose to have a deputy, not to have a deputy or appoint as many deputies as said minister desires; each ministry being largely self-regulating with the exceptions of constitutional or legal conflicts. In theory, a minister could appoint a block of cheese as a deputy (how a block of cheese could have enough sentience to do anything is questionable, but that's beside the point).

Technically speaking, deputy ministers not even being mentioned in the Constitution or Legal Code, could be anyone or anything, citizen or not, RA member or not as both documents are silent on the matter as to whether or not such 'government officials' in a largely autonomous and self regulating ministry should or should not even be a citizen. This gets even more complicated given the fact that there is nothing in the TNP Constitution that is declarative of whether or not the Constitution is a document that defines authority in a delegated and/or reserved fashion.
 
1. Does that include Executive Officers/Ministers appointed by the delegate?
2. Does that include Deputy Ministers?
3. Does that include Deputy Attorneys General?
4. Does that include the Deputy Speaker?
5. Does that include any other officers that do not have any specific powers outlined by the Constitution or Legal Code, which may be appointed/made up in the future?
Click to expand...
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. The ruling is based on current officials however as Court Precedent usually stands yes.

6. Does that include Deputy Deputies?
7. How far down the rabbit hole of deputy appointments can we go?
Click to expand...
6. There are not currently any Deputies of Deputies.
7. You can request that in a separate ruling and I would be glad to look into it for you.
 
6. There are not currently any Deputies of Deputies.
Click to expand...

a) This is a terrible cop-out in order to avoid answering the question and clarifying the ruling.
b) Wrong.

7. You can request that in a separate ruling and I would be glad to look into it for you.
Click to expand...

This question clearly grows out of the deputy question, which remains completely opaque in the context of this ruling. It is utterly inane to suggest that I must file a separate request to clarify the extent to which this ruling applies!
 
SillyString:
6. There are not currently any Deputies of Deputies.
Click to expand...

a) This is a terrible cop-out in order to avoid answering the question and clarifying the ruling.
b) Wrong.

7. You can request that in a separate ruling and I would be glad to look into it for you.
Click to expand...

This question clearly grows out of the deputy question, which remains completely opaque in the context of this ruling. It is utterly inane to suggest that I must file a separate request to clarify the extent to which this ruling applies!
Click to expand...
I was not wrong at the time of my post so do not even begin to tell me I was.

Since you have taken upon yourself to mock the Court by appointing a Deputy to your Deputy office I will clarify:

The ruling extends to them and however further you would like to take it down the rabbit hole. So if you feel compelled to appoint 30 more deputies the ruling applies to them as well.

I do not appreciate the attitude you are giving as I answered the questions to what the Court looked at at the time of the ruling which is more than the other Justices would do for.
 
Hileville:
The ruling extends to them and however further you would like to take it down the rabbit hole. So if you feel compelled to appoint 30 more deputies the ruling applies to them as well.
Click to expand...
Many thanks! ^_^
 
Topic Closed. I encourage anyone wishing to make further commentary on this ruling within the Public Gallery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top