abc:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Are there any legal controversies in TNP law which you presently think would warrant the use of the inherent standing to bring judicial review which you would enjoy as Attorney General, if elected? If so, what are they and why do you consider that they warrant judicial review? If not, in what circumstances, generally, would you consider use of the Attorney General's inherent standing appropriate?
The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate or a Minister?
Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?
No. Circumstances for me to take a judicial review in would need to be only in cases that either involved outside interference (ex. meddling in an election) or cases that had gone on for at least 2 weeks and still hadn't come to a conclusion.
I'd strongly condemn their actions and start an investigation into their actions. Whether they were a Vice Delegate, a Minister, or any other position of power they'd receive the same response and the same actions would be taken against them.
I believe that that laws on sentencing are sufficient except that the punishment for adspam should
not include banning (although ejection should still be allowed), but instead include suspension of basic speaking rights and they should be banned from all discord servers for an amount of time approved by the AG based on the severity of the adspam.
Thank you for your answers. I have a number of follow ups.
In relation to my first question: your opponent has suggested that among the circumstances in which he may bring a matter for judicial review, one is where no one else would be likely to have standing to do so, you, however, do not seem to have mentioned such, why is this? Could you explain the second class of matters you may think appropriate for judicial review a bit further (that is, "[those] that had gone on for at least 2 weeks and still hadn't come to a conclusion")?
In relation to the second question: Do you believe that issues may arise, in relation to any potential criminal action, as a result of the operation of the provisions of Section 7.4, clauses 22-24 of the Codified Law? What would be the status, in relation to any potential criminal action against them, of the advice given to the official?[note]EDIT: clarification on this question, as it seems I may not have been wholly clear in relation to what I meant by asking as to the status of the advice given to the official: there does not appear to have been any consideration of the issue of legal privilege in TNP, presumably because there does not appear to be a power to require evidence to be given for the purposes of prosecution and so there has been no attempt to use it to require legal advice be disclosed (the power of the Court to require evidence seems only to extend to exculpatory evidence (
Re: the Existence of a Duty to Disclose;
Re: the power of the Court to subpoena evidence)), so would it be open to the Attorney General to use the advice given for the purpose of a prosecution (for instance, to prove that a violation of a law was done knowing it was a violation)?[/note] Could the constitutional requirement to act as legal adviser to the official extend to a requirement to act as their defence counsel in relation to any criminal action, presuming such action was not the result of ignoring advice previously given to them?
In relation to the third, why do you consider banning an inappropriate sentence? Why ought the punishment, whether for adspam or for any crime, be approved by the Attorney General?
