|
Post by Hyderbourg on Aug 23, 2017 12:58:23 GMT -5
Baxten logged in to his nation roughly a day ago but hasn't made an RMB post in 8 days or taken government activity since he made a post about his inactivity about two weeks ago. The Constitution of the Second Republic states that "In the event that the Chancellor is absent for a period of more than 7 days" the VC will take over until his return. I believe this is saying in this instance that if he is absent from his role in government, which he has been, then this would occur. Upon his return, he would get his position back, but I know a lot of people are concerned about the genuine crisis that we are facing and I think this is a step we can take to start working on it. We need an executive who can make decisions and help us now rather than later. Andromitus as the MoJ, Sulania as the MoIA, and Cesorion as the MoFA agree with this assessment and we are now making a formal plea to the Supreme Court to determine if this is a correct assessment of the situation. Baxten is a busy individual and we understand that, but this government needs to function and this is the way that will happen. His position will be waiting for him upon his permanent return.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Aug 23, 2017 13:11:33 GMT -5
For future reference, I'd ask that future posts asking for constitutional interpretations give some indication of what is being asked to be interpreted in the title (ex. "Constitutional Interpretation re: Chancellor Absence"). This might not be the only interpretation this institution will be asked and, for the purpose of record-keeping, having some additional details in the titles might be helpful for future reference.
I ask that my fellow colleagues disclose whether they agree or disagree with Hyder's request.
For my part, I must unfortunately disagree. It's not that Hyder isn't likely correct in saying that Baxten hasn't been active in his role as Chancellor, but rather that we do not have sufficient evidence to support this interpretation.
Had Baxten not logged into NationStates in the past seven days, I would say that in and of itself stood as testament to his inactivity in office. However, as he has logged in recently, I cannot say definitively whether he sent any office-related telegrams or participated in any office duty that would not otherwise have been strikingly apparent.
What this request essentially asks is that the Supreme Court consider an elected officer to be absent if he or she has not posted on the RMB in the past seven days, and this is unfortunately not a proper gauge of whether the official has participated in some manner of their elected duty.
I understand this is likely frustrating to members of Cabinet and to the citizenry, but I cannot agree with this interpretation if I have evidence that's said he's been online recently and no evidence that indicates that he has absolutely and to a reasonable extent been absent from any and all government duties.
I will also note that there will be an election soon- scheduled to conclude on September 4 - so a change of government at this moment through an order of succession arguably will not have too large of an impact before a change of government by way of election soon takes place.
|
|
|
Post by kalaron on Aug 23, 2017 13:12:29 GMT -5
In my opinion, though Baxten has signed on within the last day he has been chronically absent from NS and from the executive position he holds. This absence -though not total due to his signing in- when taken with his prior extended absences for days at a time is enough for me to agree that Article V Section II does need to be triggered here until such a time as Baxten returns or is able to fulfill his duty to the commonwealth.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Aug 23, 2017 13:42:31 GMT -5
I would ask that citizens do not attempt to influence the decision of the Supreme Court by way of private telegrams. I spoke to judicial transparency in my earlier post just a short while ago, and initiating a discussion with Supreme Court Justices on an active case through a private telegram to "hope help convince [us] of this issue" is wholly inappropriate.
For the purpose of continued transparency, this was the telegram, sent by South Hyder, received by both Jas and I:
I made a post on the Forums but realized it was probably out of order, so I'll just telegram it to you guys so you can assess these points that I hope help convince you of this issue.
I would just like to point out in response to Continental Commonwealths, this does not "consider an elected official to be absent if he or she has not posted on the RMB in the past seven days" I have cited every single member of the Cabinet, all which have agreed that they have not been in contact with Baxten for over the period of seven days mandated. I believe that if every cabinet member agrees that he has been inactive for seven days, paired with the fact that he has not posted in eight days, paired with the fact that he has not been on Discord, it is fair to assume that Article V Section II be invoked.
Absent means not present, and he has not been present to the public or his own cabinet for at least eight days.
I really do ask you to reassess your position, as many people have pointed out, we are in a crisis that needs to be dealt with now, not after the next election.
This is not even a huge request as he will be given his position upon his return and the election is coming up, as you pointed out.
Please think about the content of it and the true implications of this decision.
My response, which is posted here (and on the RMB) publicly and not sent by telegram, is as follows:
a) To say "every cabinet member agrees" is an incorrect statement because, as far as the Supreme Court is aware, only you (Hyder) have said that every cabinet member agrees. This is the same issue as you saying a Supreme Justice already agrees. Unless your provide documentation (such as through screenshots) of these agreements, it has to be considered as hearsay by the Courts.
b) The position of Chancellor is, according to the Constitution, also involved in diplomatic relations. Even if every Cabinet member states the Chancellor has not been in contact with them, the Chancellor could have still been assuming some of his duties by way of interacting with foreign governments and therefore still be said to be active. This is a possible scenario for as long as he has been logged into NationStates at sometime in the past seven days. I can't determine definitively that it is not without evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Hyderbourg on Aug 23, 2017 13:52:07 GMT -5
Again, there was no intent to be secretive, as I even said in the telegram, I posted on the forums first, but was informed it may be out of order. I also posted the exact content of this on Discord where anyone can see it. In regard to requested screenshots- Supreme Court Justice-http://imgur.com/a/ghJ6b Cabinet - MoFA - imgur.com/a/2Ajbt (this also implies that to the best of the knowledge the MoFA does not believe that Baxten has been involved in foreign affairs) MoJ - imgur.com/a/AqewAMoIA - imgur.com/a/zUtWHVC - Just take my word for it I'm sorry if my posting syntax was off or I did not act in an anticipated manner regarding certain aspects of my proposal as I am not yet a veteran of the region. If there is any other way I can help, I'd be happy to.
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Aug 23, 2017 14:08:22 GMT -5
While I can sympathize with South Hyder’s concerns of an inactive Chancellor, with the evidence currently available to us, I have to side with my fellow Justice Continental Commonwealths in disagreeing with South Hyder's request.
As the Constitution does not define what constitutes the ‘absence’ of the Chancellor, I feel logging in is the closest proxy for the time being; anything other than logging in seems arbitrary and a poor reflection of activity. Furthermore, we cannot prove that Baxten hasn’t been doing government activity while he’s been logged in, and I think removing a Chancellor, especially so close to an election, should only be done with the highest standard of evidence. If Baxten has logged in in the past couple of days, he should keep his position for the time being.
That being said, the Constitution is vague on the issue of removing a Chancellor, and what constitutes the ‘absence’ of a Chancellor. Thus, I urge lawmakers to fix this ambiguity and install concrete guidelines for removing a Chancellor as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Aug 23, 2017 14:16:10 GMT -5
With a 1-2 decision against the assumed interpretation in the stated request, the Supreme Court rules that South Hyder's position regarding the temporary removal of Chancellor Baxten under Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution would be unlawful in this circumstance.
Thank you, fellow Supreme Justices. For those who have posted on this thread, please refrain from making any significant edits to your posts so that this may be retained for record-keeping and precedent purposes.
|
|