- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
This thread is to record the deliberations of the Court in relation to the request for review relating to whether Deputy Ministers are government officials. The thread for this request can be found here.
The request was accepted by Bootsie, who is the presiding justice with respect to this request. Discussion around the acceptance can be seen below.
The request was accepted by Bootsie, who is the presiding justice with respect to this request. Discussion around the acceptance can be seen below.
January 13, 2018
[7:55 PM] Scorch: We have another one.
[8:00 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[8:02 PM] Scorch: What are your thoughts?
[8:06 PM] Zyvet: It is an interesting one. I am somewhat surprised that no additional rulings are cited, as there are rulings on the question of the meaning of government official.
[8:09 PM] Zyvet: No question of standing arises, of course, given Goy is the AG. I am going to have to look at the previous rulings though, as there may be a precedent question
[8:10 PM] Zyvet: The rulings I am thinking of are: On Justices as Government Officials; and On the Definition of Government Officials
[8:11 PM] Zyvet: Just for clarity, none of us are Deputy Ministers are we
[8:11 PM] Zyvet: ?
[8:11 PM] Scorch: I'm looking at the definition of government officials one now.
[8:11 PM] Scorch: No. I am not.
[8:11 PM] Scorch: Although, I was looking into becoming one.
[8:12 PM] Scorch: Do you think that gives me a COI?
[8:16 PM] Zyvet: I wouldn't think it necessarily gives rise to a COI, if future official ambitions could give rise to COIs then I would think there would be relatively few justices who would not have to recuse. Ultimately it is a matter of judgement
[8:18 PM] Scorch: Alright. I don't believe I have a COI but I felt I had to ask.
[8:18 PM] Scorch: "Opinion Part 1: With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.
Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision. "
[8:19 PM] Scorch: Even thought Deputy Ministers are listed in the opinion, they don't seem to be acknowledged in the ruling.
[8:20 PM] Zyvet: It is... not the most thorough ruling, in my view
[8:20 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[8:20 PM] Scorch: Lol.
[8:21 PM] Zyvet: It should be borne in mind, Article 7 (article 6 as it then was) has changed quite substantially since the ruling
[8:25 PM] Zyvet: "1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.
2. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
4. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
5. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
6. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices may be established by law."
Is the the text as it was at the time of those rulings
[8:26 PM] Zyvet: So it is not necessarily the case that the current law has the same meaning as it was then opined to have
[8:27 PM] Scorch: True
[8:27 PM] Scorch: True
[8:27 PM] Scorch: Sorry for the double. Lost connection
[8:28 PM] Zyvet: No worries. I think my view is that it is proper to accept the request
[8:29 PM] Scorch: I agree
[8:30 PM] Zyvet: Would either of you wish to be presiding Justice for this review? (presuming you agree it ought to be accepted, @Bootsie )
[8:33 PM] Scorch: I would be pretty much interested in any r4r but I don't really think it is fair for me to be a case hog.
[8:38 PM] Scorch: So unless you both absolutely have no interest in taking it, one of you can be the moderating justice.
[8:42 PM] Zyvet: I am interested in taking it, but I've had opportunity to preside in the past, so if you (Bootsie) want it, then you can preside on this one. If not, I'll do so
[11:02 PM] Zyvet: I feel like the worst part of being a Justice is having to exercise restraint in getting involved in public discussions of r4rs :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:02 PM] Scorch: Completely agree. :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:02 PM] Scorch: I have been watching this one going on now wanting to say something.
[11:02 PM] Zyvet: Someone should r4r that idea, infringement on free speech and all that :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:03 PM] Zyvet: Free the Justices!
[11:03 PM] Scorch: ^
[11:05 PM] Zyvet: The AG seeking to rely on the explanatory statement of a single Justice is interesting
[11:05 PM] Scorch: That's one way to describe it. :stuck_out_tongue:
January 14, 2018
[12:09 AM] Bootsie: I'll preside over the R4R. So, yeah, I agree with accepting it.
[12:13 AM] Zyvet: Wonderful, feel free to accept it whenever you get opportunity
[12:14 AM] Bootsie: I'll do it now.
[12:14 AM] Zyvet: nods
[12:15 AM] Zyvet: Who will rule first, us on this request that has just begun or the THO panel on the r4r r4r r4r :stuck_out_tongue:
[12:15 AM] Bootsie: Lol.
[12:15 AM] Bootsie: What is five days from now?
[12:15 AM] Bootsie: I'm asking a Brit, never mind.
[12:15 AM] Zyvet: For me it is the 19th
[12:15 AM] Scorch: lol to zyvet(edited)
[12:16 AM] Zyvet: Just, as it is only quarter past midnight
[12:16 AM] Scorch: For us it is the 18th @Bootsie
[12:19 AM] Bootsie: What is the code for timestamp again?
[12:19 AM] Scorch: (time=)
[12:20 AM] Scorch: I think.
[12:20 AM] Zyvet: nods
[12:24 AM] Bootsie: I was doing (timestamp=)
[12:24 AM] Bootsie:
[12:24 AM] Scorch: lol
[7:55 PM] Scorch: We have another one.
[8:00 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[8:02 PM] Scorch: What are your thoughts?
[8:06 PM] Zyvet: It is an interesting one. I am somewhat surprised that no additional rulings are cited, as there are rulings on the question of the meaning of government official.
[8:09 PM] Zyvet: No question of standing arises, of course, given Goy is the AG. I am going to have to look at the previous rulings though, as there may be a precedent question
[8:10 PM] Zyvet: The rulings I am thinking of are: On Justices as Government Officials; and On the Definition of Government Officials
[8:11 PM] Zyvet: Just for clarity, none of us are Deputy Ministers are we
[8:11 PM] Zyvet: ?
[8:11 PM] Scorch: I'm looking at the definition of government officials one now.
[8:11 PM] Scorch: No. I am not.
[8:11 PM] Scorch: Although, I was looking into becoming one.
[8:12 PM] Scorch: Do you think that gives me a COI?
[8:16 PM] Zyvet: I wouldn't think it necessarily gives rise to a COI, if future official ambitions could give rise to COIs then I would think there would be relatively few justices who would not have to recuse. Ultimately it is a matter of judgement
[8:18 PM] Scorch: Alright. I don't believe I have a COI but I felt I had to ask.
[8:18 PM] Scorch: "Opinion Part 1: With respect to the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General, Appointed Ministers, Appointed Deputy Speaker/Ministers, and Appointed Deputy Attorney Generals
The positions of Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Speaker, Attorney General and their applicable deputies all have specific powers outlined by The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code.
Article 6 of the Constitution notes that all government officials shall swear an oath of office. This oath is the requirement to assume a position giving the officeholder authority and powers beyond the ability to introduce legislation and vote in elections which are conferred to members of the Regional Assembly.
Furthermore, Bill of Rights numbers 4, 5, 8 describe the recourse methods for nations believing they have been aggrieved by government officials. This Court finds that the expressed and implicit intent of these rights are to ensure all named and appointed by named offices within TNP law be subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Court finds that these positions are government officials and are subject to this provision. "
[8:19 PM] Scorch: Even thought Deputy Ministers are listed in the opinion, they don't seem to be acknowledged in the ruling.
[8:20 PM] Zyvet: It is... not the most thorough ruling, in my view
[8:20 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[8:20 PM] Scorch: Lol.
[8:21 PM] Zyvet: It should be borne in mind, Article 7 (article 6 as it then was) has changed quite substantially since the ruling
[8:25 PM] Zyvet: "1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.
2. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
3. No person may simultaneously hold more than one elected office or simultaneously hold offices in more than one judicial, legislative or executive category.
4. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
5. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.
6. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices may be established by law."
Is the the text as it was at the time of those rulings
[8:26 PM] Zyvet: So it is not necessarily the case that the current law has the same meaning as it was then opined to have
[8:27 PM] Scorch: True
[8:27 PM] Scorch: True
[8:27 PM] Scorch: Sorry for the double. Lost connection
[8:28 PM] Zyvet: No worries. I think my view is that it is proper to accept the request
[8:29 PM] Scorch: I agree
[8:30 PM] Zyvet: Would either of you wish to be presiding Justice for this review? (presuming you agree it ought to be accepted, @Bootsie )
[8:33 PM] Scorch: I would be pretty much interested in any r4r but I don't really think it is fair for me to be a case hog.
[8:38 PM] Scorch: So unless you both absolutely have no interest in taking it, one of you can be the moderating justice.
[8:42 PM] Zyvet: I am interested in taking it, but I've had opportunity to preside in the past, so if you (Bootsie) want it, then you can preside on this one. If not, I'll do so
[11:02 PM] Zyvet: I feel like the worst part of being a Justice is having to exercise restraint in getting involved in public discussions of r4rs :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:02 PM] Scorch: Completely agree. :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:02 PM] Scorch: I have been watching this one going on now wanting to say something.
[11:02 PM] Zyvet: Someone should r4r that idea, infringement on free speech and all that :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:03 PM] Zyvet: Free the Justices!
[11:03 PM] Scorch: ^
[11:05 PM] Zyvet: The AG seeking to rely on the explanatory statement of a single Justice is interesting
[11:05 PM] Scorch: That's one way to describe it. :stuck_out_tongue:
January 14, 2018
[12:09 AM] Bootsie: I'll preside over the R4R. So, yeah, I agree with accepting it.
[12:13 AM] Zyvet: Wonderful, feel free to accept it whenever you get opportunity
[12:14 AM] Bootsie: I'll do it now.
[12:14 AM] Zyvet: nods
[12:15 AM] Zyvet: Who will rule first, us on this request that has just begun or the THO panel on the r4r r4r r4r :stuck_out_tongue:
[12:15 AM] Bootsie: Lol.
[12:15 AM] Bootsie: What is five days from now?
[12:15 AM] Bootsie: I'm asking a Brit, never mind.
[12:15 AM] Zyvet: For me it is the 19th
[12:15 AM] Scorch: lol to zyvet(edited)
[12:16 AM] Zyvet: Just, as it is only quarter past midnight
[12:16 AM] Scorch: For us it is the 18th @Bootsie
[12:19 AM] Bootsie: What is the code for timestamp again?
[12:19 AM] Scorch: (time=)
[12:20 AM] Scorch: I think.
[12:20 AM] Zyvet: nods
[12:24 AM] Bootsie: I was doing (timestamp=)
[12:24 AM] Bootsie:
[12:24 AM] Scorch: lol