|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 4, 2015 2:53:17 GMT -6
Zooks and double zooks. We had thirteen pages of posts within about five hours yesterday evening. I tried to keep track on my iPhone (I wasn't home till late) but y'all killed the battery before I could get caught up. There is a LOT here I would like to reply to, but I need to leave for work shortly, so I'll only be able to reply quickly to a few posts by others at first. Aside from the 'What are you listening to' posts, this may be the longest thread in all Wittenberg XI. And it's still growing! EDIT: hahaha - this post started page sixteen! |
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 4, 2015 2:56:37 GMT -6
What you need to remember is that your King is very legalistic. He loves learning and following rules. He probably would not let you take money for landing on "Free Parking" in "Monopoly". So just read the rules, and try to apply those rules: not what you'd like them to say or what you can argue they say, but what the rules actually say. That is abundantly clear and is fine by me, Patrick. It's everyone's duty to read the laws thoroughly, but you like so many others are missing the Burning Question. Yes, yes, John wants to preserve what little royal powers he has, but why?? And why on earth is it such a horrible thing to have a Constable actually be from the province s/he is taking care of? John has not answered either of these questions, and I, for one, tire of hearing of his great obedience to 'the rules'. We want logic, Patrick - not rules. |
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jun 4, 2015 3:14:54 GMT -6
The logic is: ME KING. THIS KINGDOM. GIT OFF MAH LAWN, PUNY DEMOCRATS.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jun 4, 2015 3:16:03 GMT -6
I have my problems with King John, today, but King Robert was a sadistic paranoiac who wouldn't have even let his political opponents get into government, much less threaten the monarchy. He would actually ring up his political opponents and yell "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO RUIN MY LIFE?" You told me once, Daph, Ben called up Charles S., and in the midst of the conversation made Charles cry. Yes, he made him cry! Poor Charles came from an abusive family and Ben knew how to work his weak spots. He also rang up Dan Wardlow, who just laughed at him. |
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 4, 2015 3:30:14 GMT -6
lol re Dan (I hope to meet that guy someday) - Wow on Ben: John would never in a million years do something like that. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pôl d'Aurìbuérg on Jun 4, 2015 4:11:21 GMT -6
Indeed. It definitely needs to be fixed. I agree. Let's fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Luïç Baptiçistà on Jun 4, 2015 4:31:55 GMT -6
What you need to remember is that your King is very legalistic. He loves learning and following rules. He probably would not let you take money for landing on "Free Parking" in "Monopoly". So just read the rules, and try to apply those rules: not what you'd like them to say or what you can argue they say, but what the rules actually say. Excuse me, Patrick, but even under this OrgLaw, the King does not get to declare "what the rules actually say". That's the Uppermost Cort's job, in the case of conflict. (...) As few of you should now: Judicial interpretation has a few theoryes or modes of how the law should be interpreted, particularly constitutional documents and legislation... Here follows a few methods of constitutional interpretation: * Textualism: when judges consult the actual language of the Constitution first, and perhaps last, the method has an "obvious appeal" for its simplicity but can be hampered when the language of the Constitution itself is ambiguous *Strict constructionism: when a judge interprets the text only as it is spoken; once a clear meaning has been established, there is no need for further analysis, and judges should avoid drawing inferences from previous statutes or the constitution and instead focus on exactly what was written.[2] For example, It was argued that the First US Amendment's wording in reference to certain civil rights that Congress shall make no law should mean exactly that: no law, no exceptions, end of story, according to this method; * Founders' Intent: when judges try to gauge the intentions of the authors of the Constitution. Problems can arise when judges try to determine which particular Founders or Framers to consult, as well as try to determine what they meant based on often sparse and incomplete documentation; *Originalism is when judges try to apply the "original" meanings of various constitutional provisions; See that laws interpretations are not a easy job, but the only thing the all have in same is: the word "judges" See Prince Patrick with all due respect, when you say those things: "So just read the rules, and try to apply those rules" "(...) not what you'd like them to say" "but what the rules actually say. " You and the king stepped into the Judiciary's prerogatives as appointed by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, it does not fit the Crown to interprets the Organic Law, or to apply those law, it fits the Uppermost Cort to do so, by a "judge" who is technically qualified to do so... Your Highness King John seems to have used the "Strict constructionism" method of interpretation of law in the ARTICLE XV of the Organic Law. But the method to be used should be decided by the judges of the Uppermost Cort not for the King or the Prince... I am not against the refraining of proclamation of the amendment itself, for example the Uppermost Cort can think that in this case it is applied the "Strict constructionism" method, then the King has this right to do so... But the king shouldn't step ahead of the Judiciary and try to do or say how to do its job as its suits. That was the thing that disappointed me and I think a few other too, the fact that the Crown has tried to steal the Judiciary Power from its prerogatives, by doing its job...  |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 4, 2015 5:02:43 GMT -6
See that laws interpretations are not a easy job, but the only thing the all have in same is: the word "judges" See Prince Patrick with all due respect, when you say those things: "So just read the rules, and try to apply those rules" "(...) not what you'd like them to say" "but what the rules actually say. " You and the king stepped into the Judiciary's prerogatives as appointed by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, it does not fit the Crown to interprets the Organic Law, or to apply those law, it fits the Uppermost Cort to do so, by a "judge" who is technically qualified to do so... Your Highness King John seems to have used the "Strict constructionism" method of interpretation of law in the ARTICLE XV of the Organic Law. But the method to be used should be decided by the judges of the Uppermost Cort not for the King or the Prince... I am not against the refraining of proclamation of the amendment itself, for example the Uppermost Cort can think that in this case it is applied the "Strict constructionism" method, then the King has this right to do so... But the king shouldn't step ahead of the Judiciary and try to do or say how to do its job as its suits. That was the thing that disappointed me and I think a few other too, the fact that the Crown has tried to steal the Judiciary Power from its prerogatives, by doing its job... This doesn't seem right to me. Judicial interpretation comes after the fact. In first instance, officials charged with executing or complying with a law must interpret the law for themselves and act in accordance with their own understanding of what the law requires. If questioned, it is entirely reasonable for them to explain how they interpreted the law in justification of their actions. Those actions may be challenged in court and the courts may interpret the law differently in the end, but before that happens it's just silly to say an official has "stolen" judicial power (I thought no one was supposed to use that word) or usurped the role of the courts by explaining why he or she believed he or she was acting in accordance with the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Luïç Baptiçistà on Jun 4, 2015 6:37:36 GMT -6
Sir C. M. Siervicül "(...) officials charged with executing or complying with a law must interpret the law for themselves and act in accordance with their own understanding of what the law requires... (...)" Nope, the people should not interpret the law, they should follow it, otherwise this would leave to a mess, like this one now, since You cannot interpret the law as it suits you... If you have questions about the interpretation of the organic law, or any other law in any place in the world you should ask the Court about it, if you have any doubts... And they will clarify it for you... I think You said that it is ok to first you act then later you justify your action... I believe you must ask first if you have a doubt, then act... I think one method of interpretation is better than the other, for instance the "Founders' Intent" method is the best one, so I should use it, the king thinks that "Strict Constructionism" is better in this case... Besides The Judiciary no one has legal authorization to interpret the law as it suits... In this case I understood what you tried to say and I would agree with you if the King was trying just to explain how he interpreted the law in justification of their actions... And I could be perfectly able to see that, that he believes in the "Strict constructionism" method of interpretation... If he only had stopped there it would have been fine...  But the problem is that not only once the Crown, by the King and The Prince tried to use the authority to declare what the Article XV of the Organic Law was trying to say... They are interpreting the Article XV of the Organic Law via "Strict constructionism" method and affirming that this is right. And both the King and the Prince insisted on this matter to declare "what the rules actually say"... They insist on affirming what the Law was saying or trying to say... And clearly doesn't fit, me, you, the king, the prince, Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, or anyone else besides the Uppermst Court to declare the meaning of the Article XV of the Organic Law... It fits the Judiciary in The Uppermost Court and only to do so. Explaining is one thing Affirm is other... In the beginning he was explaining his point, but later he decides do interprete the law and affirm what the law is saying...
|
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 4, 2015 8:01:29 GMT -6
Sir C. M. Siervicül "(...) officials charged with executing or complying with a law must interpret the law for themselves and act in accordance with their own understanding of what the law requires... (...)" Nope, the people should not interpret the law, they should follow it, otherwise this would leave to a mess, like this one now, since You cannot interpret the law as it suits you... If you have questions about the interpretation of the organic law, or any other law in any place in the world you should ask the Court about it, if you have any doubts... And they will clarify it for you... I think You said that it is ok to first you act then later you justify your action... I believe you must ask first if you have a doubt, then act... I think one method of interpretation is better than the other, for instance the "Founders' Intent" method is the best one, so I should use it, the king thinks that "Strict Constructionism" is better in this case... Besides The Judiciary no one has legal authorization to interpret the law as it suits... In this case I understood what you tried to say and I would agree with you if the King was trying just to explain how he interpreted the law in justification of their actions... And I could be perfectly able to see that, that he believes in the "Strict constructionism" method of interpretation... If he only had stopped there it would have been fine... But the problem is that not only once the Crown, by the King and The Prince tried to use the authority to declare what the Article XV of the Organic Law was trying to say... They are interpreting the Article XV of the Organic Law via "Strict constructionism" method and affirming that this is right. And both the King and the Prince insisted on this matter to declare "what the rules actually say"... They insist on affirming what the Law was saying or trying to say... And clearly doesn't fit, me, you, the king, the prince, Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, or anyone else besides the Uppermst Court to declare the meaning of the Article XV of the Organic Law... It fits the Judiciary in The Uppermost Court and only to do so. Explaining is one thing Affirm is other... In the beginning he was explaining his point, but later he decides do interprete the law and affirm what the law is saying... In order to follow a law, one must first interpret the law. Given the absurdity of having to ask a Judge to interpret every law before you apply it, of course everybody interprets applicable law for themselves, and when anybody challenges that interpretation and application thereof, a Court of Law is called upon. |
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063 
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jun 4, 2015 11:06:07 GMT -6
You and the king stepped into the Judiciary's prerogatives as appointed by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, I am sure you used imprecise language here because Dame Miestra does not nor has she ever had the authority vested in her to appoint members of the judiciary. For reference, see the Organic Law. |
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 4, 2015 14:27:45 GMT -6
See that laws interpretations are not a easy job, but the only thing the all have in same is: the word "judges" See Prince Patrick with all due respect, when you say those things: "So just read the rules, and try to apply those rules" "(...) not what you'd like them to say" "but what the rules actually say. " You and the king stepped into the Judiciary's prerogatives as appointed by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, it does not fit the Crown to interprets the Organic Law, or to apply those law, it fits the Uppermost Cort to do so, by a "judge" who is technically qualified to do so... Your Highness King John seems to have used the "Strict constructionism" method of interpretation of law in the ARTICLE XV of the Organic Law. But the method to be used should be decided by the judges of the Uppermost Cort not for the King or the Prince... I am not against the refraining of proclamation of the amendment itself, for example the Uppermost Cort can think that in this case it is applied the "Strict constructionism" method, then the King has this right to do so... But the king shouldn't step ahead of the Judiciary and try to do or say how to do its job as its suits. That was the thing that disappointed me and I think a few other too, the fact that the Crown has tried to steal the Judiciary Power from its prerogatives, by doing its job... This doesn't seem right to me. Judicial interpretation comes after the fact. In first instance, officials charged with executing or complying with a law must interpret the law for themselves and act in accordance with their own understanding of what the law requires. If questioned, it is entirely reasonable for them to explain how they interpreted the law in justification of their actions. Those actions may be challenged in court and the courts may interpret the law differently in the end, but before that happens it's just silly to say an official has "stolen" judicial power (I thought no one was supposed to use that word) or usurped the role of the courts by explaining why he or she believed he or she was acting in accordance with the law. I agree with you, Cresti. What John did was a use a part of the law no-one aside from him and (perhaps) a few others had considered. The questions are these: The monarch's job is to 'warn'. Why did John choose not to 'warn' everyone about this Organic loophole and instead choose to use it when he did and with no prior notice. And why is it a danger to not have the Cunstuval of one province serve as head of government for another? The King still has not answered these questions. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Luïç Baptiçistà on Jun 4, 2015 19:20:38 GMT -6
You and the king stepped into the Judiciary's prerogatives as appointed by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, I am sure you used imprecise language here because Dame Miestra does not nor has she ever had the authority vested in her to appoint members of the judiciary. For reference, see the Organic Law. What I was trying to say is that Prince Patrick and King John, had stepped into the Uppermost Court prerogatives of interpreting the meaning of an article of the Organic Law... And that, Maestra Shiva pointed (appointed, maybe I have used the wrong word) the error made by the King and the Prince... The Crown has no authority to interpret the Organic Law, and to choose with which method of interpretation will be use to do so... That authority lies within the Uppermost Court... It would be absurd to think that the crown has this power to interprets the law as it fits to its will... If this would happen the Crown would be vested with part the Judiciary Powers... |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 4, 2015 20:50:28 GMT -6
I am sure you used imprecise language here because Dame Miestra does not nor has she ever had the authority vested in her to appoint members of the judiciary. For reference, see the Organic Law. What I was trying to say is that Prince Patrick and King John, had stepped into the Uppermost Court prerogatives of interpreting the meaning of an article of the Organic Law... And that, Maestra Shiva pointed (appointed, maybe I have used the wrong word) the error made by the King and the Prince... The Crown has no authority to interpret the Organic Law, and to choose with which method of interpretation will be use to do so... That authority lies within the Uppermost Court... It would be absurd to think that the crown has this power to interprets the law as it fits to its will... If this would happen the Crown would be vested with part the Judiciary Powers... The longer I think about it, the more I get the impression that you do not quite grasp the purpose of laws, courts of law, executive branches, and the way all of that interacts with one another, and with the people. I might be wrong. But anyway, I can't explain now. Maybe later! Sorry :/ |
|
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 Jun 5, 2015 8:59:20 GMT -6
My two bence here.
The Law is the law. The Cort's explanations or interpretations of the Law are not the law. (Nor are my explanations, or the Government's, or anyone else's.) There are ambiguities in laws that need to be authoritatively cleared up, and the courts are charged with making those clarifications. But where there's no ambiguity, the Cort has no right or power or justification if it tries to take the plain language of the law and "interpret" it to mean something that, in fact, it doesn't mean.
For instance, the Organic Law says "The Cosâ is composed of 200 seats, apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election." Now, a case might arise in which the inherent ambiguity of "based on their performance" came into question, and the Cort would have to decide whether a particular apportionment was sufficiently performance-based to meet that criterion. But there's no ambiguity at all in what "200" means, and the Cort *could not* decide that it would be better if the Cosa had 201 seats, or 20 seats, or some other number of seats. 201 is not 200. 20 is not 200. On the number of seats, there's no ambiguity in the Law, and no need for any interpretation. Everyone can interpret "200" just fine. If some Cort were to "interpret" "200" to mean 20, that wouldn't be interpretation, and it wouldn't have any legal validity at all.
That's the kind of thing we're talking about here. I'm not being a "strict constructionist" so much as just a literate reader of plain English prose. It makes perfectly good sense to argue that I *shouldn't* have refrained from doing something the OrgLaw says I "may" do; it makes perfectly good sense to argue that the OrgLaw should have been written to say "must" instead of "may". But it makes no sense at all -- linguistic, legal, or moral -- to claim some ability to *interpret* "may" into meaning "must".
— John R
|
|
