- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
From the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
Recently the Active Delegate has announced that he will take over the role of Minister of Defense himself, a role he was previously appointed to by the prior elected Delegate.
I ask the Courts to review the legality of such an action and consider the following sections from the Constitution:
The Delegate and Acting Delegate already have the powers of Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, and Internal Interest in their job description. The Mandatory Ministries Law mandates that the delegate appoints an Executive Officer and Section 7.1 of the Legal Code defines that individual as "government officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties".
The word "their" in 7.1 seems to refer to the Delegate or Acting Delegate. It is presented to the Court the argument that the law makes clear that the Delegate is to appoint others to the position of "Executive Officer" because the Delegate already is filling the role of Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, and Internal Interest of The North Pacific. They can not be double appointed to a role that they already functionally fulfill, and furthermore, the Executive Office can not assist the Delegate if the Executive Officer *is* the Delegate.
The spirit of the law is in clear violation, but I also contest that it's very clear that the letter of the law is being violated as well and request, with great respect, that the Courts review and rule on this matter.
Recently the Active Delegate has announced that he will take over the role of Minister of Defense himself, a role he was previously appointed to by the prior elected Delegate.
I ask the Courts to review the legality of such an action and consider the following sections from the Constitution:
The Delegate and Acting Delegate already have the powers of Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, and Internal Interest in their job description. The Mandatory Ministries Law mandates that the delegate appoints an Executive Officer and Section 7.1 of the Legal Code defines that individual as "government officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties".
The word "their" in 7.1 seems to refer to the Delegate or Acting Delegate. It is presented to the Court the argument that the law makes clear that the Delegate is to appoint others to the position of "Executive Officer" because the Delegate already is filling the role of Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, and Internal Interest of The North Pacific. They can not be double appointed to a role that they already functionally fulfill, and furthermore, the Executive Office can not assist the Delegate if the Executive Officer *is* the Delegate.
The spirit of the law is in clear violation, but I also contest that it's very clear that the letter of the law is being violated as well and request, with great respect, that the Courts review and rule on this matter.
Last edited:
