Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 21, 2012 22:50:54 GMT -6
WHEREAS we've a sense there might be some seats opening up on the Uppermost Cort, and
WHEREAS it'd be best, in this case, to be prepared in advance, and
WHEREAS Dr Who has taught us a lot about the legal aspects of time travel,
THEREFORE pursuant to the provisions in the Organic Law, Article XVI, Section 4, this Ziu undertakes to - “In the event of a vacancy” - prospectively nominate the following citizens to the Uppermost Cort, in this order:
1 - Sir Tamorán dal Nava, UrN
2 - Admiral T. Asmourescu
3 – Ián Tamorán
These prospective nominations become actual nominations in this manner: when one vacancy is created in the Uppermost Cort, Sir Tamorán dal Nava's nomination is understood to become active; when a second vacancy is created in the Uppermost Cort, Admiral T. Asmourescu's nomination is understood to become active; and when a third vacancy is created in the Uppermost Cort, Ián Tamorán's nomination is understood to become active. If one of these nominations is individually vetoed by the King, then the vacancy is filled by the nominee below him in the ranked list.
These nominations, if passed, will not be binding on any future removals or resignations from the Bench, in the event that all three sitting Justices are not removed and replaced during the May Clark of 2012.
Noi urent q'estadra sa
Owen Edwards (MC-CSPP)
Sir Mick Preston (Senator - M-M)
Istefan Pertgonest (MC-CSPP)
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 21, 2012 22:59:16 GMT -6
I agree with this bill.
I would like to add my name as a co-sponsor of this Bill
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Apr 21, 2012 23:07:21 GMT -6
Cosponsor!
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 22, 2012 22:17:56 GMT -6
I would read the language of Article XVI section 4 In the event of a vacancy, either in the Cort pü Înalt or in an inferior court, any member of the Ziu may nominate a replacement. The nominee shall be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Cosâ and a majority vote in the Senäts in favour of his appointment. as requiring that the vacancy exist before a nomination can be made; and the nomination must be made before the Houses can vote on it. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but for now this bill looks inOrganic to me. — John R |
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 22, 2012 22:38:03 GMT -6
That was a concern among the braintrust behind this beauty, hence the attempt at carefully wording it so that the nominations are legally understood to have occurred when a vacancy occurs. As I asked the present Distain and University Regent and the most recent retired SoS:
"The Organic Law doesn't explicitly forbid time travel does it?"
I understand it to be Organic "In the event of a vacancy" because it is not actually nominating until a vacancy exists (via the TARDIS mechanism). I understand it to be "Organic" as to "the nominee shall be approved by . . ." because the vote of the Houses would be agreeing to the TARDIS mechanism - they would vote understanding their approval relates to a nomination extant in the time-space continuum, but yet to happen in our timeline.
Am I taking this too seriously?
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Apr 22, 2012 22:51:53 GMT -6
I agree the language of the OrgLaw requires a vacancy before a nomination. On the other hand, the next sentence doesn't require the nomination be approved, but the nominee be approved. It's a stretch, but not impossible, to conclude that the Ziu could approve a person in advance, and should he subsequently be nominated, he'd be a nominee who has been (pre-)approved.
That would arguably be best done by a rewriting of this bill simply to say the Ziu approves the three (conditionally?) without actually saying anything about nomination. Then, after coming into effect, if there are any vacancies, a member of the Ziu could nominate them. Indeed, since the King is ex officio a Member of the Ziu, he could nominate and then appoint a pre-approved candidate without any outside action as soon as the vacancies arise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on Apr 22, 2012 23:35:57 GMT -6
"The Organic Law doesn't explicitly forbid time travel does it?" I understand it to be Organic "In the event of a vacancy" because it is not actually nominating until a vacancy exists (via the TARDIS mechanism). I understand it to be "Organic" as to "the nominee shall be approved by . . ." because the vote of the Houses would be agreeing to the TARDIS mechanism - they would vote understanding their approval relates to a nomination extant in the time-space continuum, but yet to happen in our timeline. Best. Quote. EVER. |
|
Sir Tamorán dal Navâ
Shackamaxon man/Can you tell me where you stand?
Posts: 772
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
Motto: Cedo nulli.
|
Post by Sir Tamorán dal Navâ on Apr 23, 2012 7:35:25 GMT -6
Just checking in: am I a Time Lord yet? Thanks.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 23, 2012 8:47:31 GMT -6
Holy moly. "You're traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind."
When a document speaks of a nomination, and immediately afterwards of a nominee, the only possible reading is that the nominee is the guy who just got nominated. That's what a nominee *is*. You can't be a nominee until you're nominated.
This is *way* better than the kind of Consitutional arguments one typically sees in the news. "The Organic Law doesn't explicitly forbid time travel does it?"!! I'm LOLing out loud, as Lord Hooligan says.
— John R
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 23, 2012 8:54:33 GMT -6
When a document speaks of a nomination, and immediately afterwards of a nominee, the only possible reading is that the nominee is the guy who just got nominated. That's what a nominee *is*. You can't be a nominee until you're nominated. And indeed they are nominated. Just...not yet. I mean, Arthur hasn't come back yet, but he's still our "Once and Future King", right? |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 23, 2012 9:37:49 GMT -6
As I asked ... the most recent retired SoS: "The Organic Law doesn't explicitly forbid time travel does it?" I believe the answer given by that fellow was " Not yet , it hasn't. But I'm not sure if it will be in the future." |
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 23, 2012 9:48:34 GMT -6
(I'll add that in strict legal terms, the prospective nominations are set up on a hair trigger; this Bill understands itself to come into effect as vacancies are created in the May Clark of 2012, which I don't see as inOrganic - the nominations are prospective "in the event of a vacancy", whilst the Houses are giving their prospective approval to those nominations. The forensic timeline would, then, be:
Prospective Nomination and Approval
Vacancy Occurs
Nomination and Approval Activate
If this Act were to be proclaimed by the King after any removal Acts, all of it would become instantly "actual", and the three Justices would be, in essence, appointed on the spot. If it were proclaimed first they would provide a pool to fill vacancies occurring.
Basically, the time travel comment is that the Bill understands itself to be activating in the future - which the OrgLaw doesn't comment on, in any direction. By creating a hair trigger, the Act both avoids inOrganicity by not nominating prior to vacancies, but also gains approval from the Ziu in the same Clark as the removals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Apr 23, 2012 13:43:26 GMT -6
I agree with this bill and wish to be added as a co-sponsor.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 23, 2012 13:48:33 GMT -6
:-)
I don't think we want to allow this kind of thing. We'll have Party leaders appointing MCs by "hairtriggers", just in case a seat ever comes open; and the King "hairtrigger signing" (or vetoing) whatever laws happen to pass, ahead of time; and people "hairtrigger voting" in General Elections before they begin.
We can make a law that comes into effect only if certain events transpire — no problem with that. But you can't nominate someone in such a way that he isn't nominated yet.
— John R
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 23, 2012 14:33:38 GMT -6
Well, all three of those are procedurally impossible, as none rely on a law being passed in the Ziu. So, the leader could signal his intention to give seats to a person if any free up (and perhaps they already do), but, unless it were by an intra-party rule, there'd be no legislative process involved. The King could signal his intention to sign or veto a law - and it would not be inappropriate for him to do so - but that would not be a legal process, and mechanically there is no provision to allow him to record his signing/veto ahead of time and then disappear for a month. People can signal their votes ahead of time, but cannot actually vote, because the process involved explicitly requires a response of some kind to the SoS' email, including the security code if the response is itself by email (at least, that was the situation as of 2009).
Now, your suggestion is that the nominees would be the same as the above situations - but the key, absolute and Organically required difference is that they are nominated via an act of law. Your comment:
is, in essence, discussing tautologous things. The Organic Law's position on the nomination of judges is that said nomination is, in essence, a law - that is, it functions by being voted upon at the Clark and passing to the King for approval. Now, it is not defined as a law, but that it how it functions - and if it is not, but simply a nomination requiring the Ziu's vote, presumably one could nominate the day the May Clark closes, and have it sent out the same day to the Ziu for approval? There are, after all, equally no time requirements re: Hoppering if it is not a law in the normal sense. Basically, if it is a law in the normal sense, it is not (legally speaking) a nomination separate from the legislative business. If it is not, then we are already restricting ourselves a great deal by treating it as such, and it seems peculiar to worry about it being "hair-triggered" in the same way as your other examples given it operates in entirely different circumstances than those others.
If you are concerned that this could encourage other hair-triggered Bills to do with nominations - given the other examples you gave are simply statements of intention, not laws, and some of them do already happen - then I'd suggest that 1) it probably won't, as this is a peculiar situation unforeseen by the OrgLaw and 2) it is, of course, down to the Ziu and then to your judgement whether the hair-trigger in this case is helpful or needed.
A final note on nominating someone in such a way that he isn't nominated - because this isn't an informal nomination, but something functioning as a Bill that enacts nominations, those nominations do not need to stand alone in the Bill - there may be certain legal requirements attached to them. In this case, it is that the named individuals - in the Bill - are nominated, with attached approval, and offered to the King for final approval. This could theoretically mean you approved the Bill but rejected all three candidates! But there we are.
Your Majesty understands that I am defending this Bill - which is completely different from the three examples you worry about, as explained above - because it seems important to some of us to sort out the legal quagmire that has existed since late 2006/2007. If the Bill is inOrganic, that is one thing. But if it is simply a concern as to the precedent set, please bear in mind that it is NOT like the other hair-triggers you worry about, and the precedent set is very unlikely to create a flood of hair-triggered nomination bills. I believe it is in the interests of the nation to resolve the issues relating to the Corts with all speed; if Your Majesty has a more satisfying, safer way of accomplishing the purposes of this Act prior to the Ziu's next convention, I will happily take instruction as to the best way to improve this Bill!
|
|
