Request for Review

Oakster

Oakster

TNPer
Looking around the Office, Jack can't see any guidance on how to submit a Constituitional Review so he just uses the same form as submitted to the Court.

Request for Law Review:
I hereby request that the Court review the following action situation:
The Most World Assembly Endorsements in The North Pacific

1.[c]The North Pacifican Delegate of Lord Ravenclaw[c]1019[c]2.[c]The Empire of Cheongji[c]890[c]3.[c]The Kingdom of Plemobria[c]884[c]4.[c]The Monarchy of Guslantis[c]852
Click to expand...
I believe that the above situation violates the following portion of the Constitution:
The North Pacific Consitution - Article 3
10.. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.

12. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...
I believe that it has violated the Constitution in the following way:

The Constitution states in Article 3, section 10 that the Vice Delegate has the second most endorsements. The Monarchy of Guslantis who is our current Vice Delegate is 4th.

The Constitution in Article 3, section 12 goes on to state that the Vice Delegate will be voted for every 4 months but this contradicts Article 3, section 10 which expressly states that the Vice Delegate has the second most endorsements which could lead to a situation, maybe as shown above, where the Vice Delegate is voted for by a majority and yet has less than the required World Assembly endorsements.

This action by a government has adversely affected me in the following way:

There is no adverse affect on my Nation er se. But the ramifications of this situation for all Nations in The North Pacific could be far reaching and extremely damaging. I am seeking to clarify what appears to be a potential contradiction in the Constitution, and a situation that appears to go against the Constitution.

If you would like to read the transcript of the associated Court Hearing you will see that the Chief Justice has advised for this to be dealt with in this office.
Click to expand...

He submits the form and awaits the initial response.
 
Admin Note (aka Opinion) Part II: Rare is the day I disagree with a fellow admin on an open forum, but in this instance I need to disagree with my fellow admin LR. Back in the old days of NS we had large debates around IC and OOC. Many people in forums such as this - the Courts - would RP just as they would in any other space.

I feel strongly that people should be allowed to express themselves as they see fit. What is the harm RPing causes here? None, in my opinion. That we all play the game differently should not mean some ways of playing are better than others. I do not want to discourage Oakster or others who play the game differently than most.

I feel strongly that this needs mention.
 
As you like. I have most certainly noted the above comments.
 
Jack stood up to listen as the two sage fellows stood up to the statement said with such finality by The Delegate of The North Pacific - Lord Ravenclaw.

Shaking them each by the hand he says:

"Thank you wise Sirs for your timely comments. I had every intention of continuing as I have been but they are welcome none the less. I will add that your interruption may have averted a judicial and constitutional nightmare for The North Pacific, and it's current government, of which they should be grateful."

"I will continue to wait for the Attorney General's Office to reply to this submission."

Sitting back down, Jack waited and mulled over the almost sinister final words uttered by Lord Ravenclaw - 'I most certainly have noted the above comments'. Is a storm brewing in The North Pacific?
 
I have a quick question for you, Oakster: What's your desired outcome here?

Is it to have grounds for some kind of criminal proseuction? Clarification on a matter of the law? Something struck down as unconstitutional?

I ask because in this thread you said you are "seeking to clarify what appears to be a potential contradiction in the Constitution, and a situation that appears to go against the Constitution", but in your criminal complaint you said that this R4R is about "the Governments apparent attempts to over-rule The North Pacific Constitution." So: if you were to get everything you wanted from this, what would it be?

Your answer will help me determine how to approach this matter.
 
I think it's pretty straight forward. It appears that your government isn't following the constitution and that the constitution potentially contradicts itself. This is a request to review that situation.

I am sure that you will look into it with the open mind that your office demands and so to second guess what the outcome, and potential fall out may be, is as futile as plaiting fog. I await your judgement.
 
I'm not interested in second-guessing what the court might decide, but rather, in what you would like to accomplish in an ideal situation. There are a couple of ways to tackle this issue and I'm hoping to take your wishes into account before filing anything.
 
I don't know what it is that you want me to say...

I submitted to the Court i.e you, a request to review the Constitution for two reasons: firstly because it states that the Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region and he doesn't. Secondly it states that The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. This could mean that there is a situation where they are elected but don't have the required endorsements.

You said that you wouldn't look at it in the Court as I couldn't say that I was personally affected. You suggested I file it here instead so that you could look into it when you become the AG. I have done that and now you are asking me what I want? You engineered this situation to satisfy your own interest so it's probably better to ask what it is you want!

All I have asked for is for there to be a review to determine if the Constitution is legal, valid, relevant, contradictory or not as the case may be. If it turns out that there are potential further legal steps to take e.g. if someone has broken the law or their powers of office to make this situation happen then I, or any other Nation, can look to take it further.

I know one thing though. Its boring doing this outside of my characters <_<
 
The RP channel beckons. You can have all sorts of fun there. In Character too! I can't comment on what Sillystring's intentions are.
 
Oakster:
All I have asked for is for there to be a review to determine if the Constitution is legal, valid, relevant, contradictory or not as the case may be. If it turns out that there are potential further legal steps to take e.g. if someone has broken the law or their powers of office to make this situation happen then I, or any other Nation, can look to take it further.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is very helpful! :)

For what it's worth, I don't think the Court could find that the constitution is not valid, but "contradictory" and "bonkers" are both definitely possible... :P
 
SillyString:
... I don't think the Court could find that the constitution is not valid, but "contradictory" and "bonkers" are both definitely possible... :P
Click to expand...
Possible?!

The Annual TNP Understatement of the Year Award goes to...!
 
My apologies for the silence on this issue. I have been working on this request behind the scenes, in combination with a couple other things, and anticipate being ready to present it shortly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top