ThaeciaBoard

Toerana V wrote:

Pictured Above: Alto criticises individual for attempting to ensure that the law is being followed

First of all, your specific, personal, vibes-based interpretation of the law flies in the face of prior precedent.

Second of all, even if your facetious case is somehow deemed correct by the High Court, I will work tirelessly to get a constitutional amendment passed to make it work like how its intended to, which your case flies in the face of.

I'm not criticizing you for "attempting to ensure that the law is being followed." I'm criticizing you for your exercise in pedanticism that goes against common sense and precedent.

Of Altonianic Islands wrote:

First of all, your specific, personal, vibes-based interpretation of the law flies in the face of prior precedent.

Second of all, even if your facetious case is somehow deemed correct by the High Court, I will work tirelessly to get a constitutional amendment passed to make it work like how its intended to, which your case flies in the face of.

I'm not criticizing you for "attempting to ensure that the law is being followed." I'm criticizing you for your exercise in pedanticism that goes against common sense and precedent.

1. There is no prior precedent on this matter. My case is not "vibes based", as was explained to you by both myself and Cinema, you twisted my words when we were in a discussion about injunctive relief. This case, if you have not read it, is not about injunctive relief, it is about my different interpretation of the constitution, which is why I asked the court to weigh in instead of entering into the sort of pointless argument we saw yesterday. But - I grant - lying is increasingly becoming the political norm in Thaecia and if you wish to continue to twist words and just flat out lie, I can't stop you.

2. Cinema has already approached me about providing the house with a number of possible different amendments to solve the issue that she referred to as a "partial gray area", and I have agreed to work with her to produce and put forward constitutional amendments that the house can then discuss and agree on to solve this matter.

3. You returned to Thaecia 2 days ago, after being prompted to by Marv because he needed signatures for his petition so instead of making a case to actually active Thaecians, he brought back long gone members. Please, engage in Thaecia in good faith, and not just as the latest round of TAP/TCU/FREE attack dog.

Ahh the sweet smell of RMB politics

The Ambis wrote:

Ahh the sweet smell of RMB politics

And the bad smell of recalls.

Oh yeah, also for full transparency:

I banned two nations earlier today, both with the name "Reich" in them. Nations like these are 99.999% toxic and fascist, and have no place in Thaecia.

This was an OOC ban done not in my position as a government official, but in my position as someone with the ban button

Toerana V wrote:

1. There is no prior precedent on this matter. My case is not "vibes based", as was explained to you by both myself and Cinema, you twisted my words when we were in a discussion about injunctive relief. This case, if you have not read it, is not about injunctive relief, it is about my different interpretation of the constitution, which is why I asked the court to weigh in instead of entering into the sort of pointless argument we saw yesterday. But - I grant - lying is increasingly becoming the political norm in Thaecia and if you wish to continue to twist words and just flat out lie, I can't stop you.

2. Cinema has already approached me about providing the house with a number of possible different amendments to solve the issue that she referred to as a "partial gray area", and I have agreed to work with her to produce and put forward constitutional amendments that the house can then discuss and agree on to solve this matter.

3. You returned to Thaecia 2 days ago, after being prompted to by Marv because he needed signatures for his petition so instead of making a case to actually active Thaecians, he brought back long gone members. Please, engage in Thaecia in good faith, and not just as the latest round of TAP/TCU/FREE attack dog.

1. Perhaps not under the current constitution, but under past constitutions I'm about 97.3% sure the ability to recall multiple people at once was settled precedent. Is that not the case? It was a long time ago, so I'm not gonna make a claim with 100% knowledge that I don't have, but I'd have bet a lot of stamps this had been settled in the old constitution.

2. Cool, let's make it exceptionally clear. But that doesn't change my first point; this is how it has worked across, I think, the last three constitutions. To have it be contested in this one, despite there being, again from my memory, very few changes is extremely pedantic. Bow, if these were four individual recall petitions that had gotten 12 signatures, would that be legal? Because that's where this whole shebang is gonna go if the High Court sides with you.

3. As to the point about being a recent arrival, I literally returned to Thaecia 35 freaking days ago according to my residency stat; I posted a bit on the RMB, although I hadn't fully reengaged with Thaecian politics until recently. So, no, Bow. I didn't return to Thaecia two days ago, I've been here more than a month. While my activity has definitely spiked after I finally took the plunge, I've been going on in the periphery, even if you hadn't noticed. As for just being an attack dog for TAP, that is factually inaccurate; I'm an attack dog for the good of the region.

Of Altonianic Islands wrote:

1. Perhaps not under the current constitution, but under past constitutions I'm about 97.3% sure the ability to recall multiple people at once was settled precedent. Is that not the case? It was a long time ago, so I'm not gonna make a claim with 100% knowledge that I don't have, but I'd have bet a lot of stamps this had been settled in the old constitution.

2. Cool, let's make it exceptionally clear. But that doesn't change my first point; this is how it has worked across, I think, the last three constitutions. To have it be contested in this one, despite there being, again from my memory, very few changes is extremely pedantic. Bow, if these were four individual recall petitions that had gotten 12 signatures, would that be legal? Because that's where this whole shebang is gonna go if the High Court sides with you.

1. All that matters in our law is what is on the books, and what has been decided under our current constitution. I'm not sure if you missed the memo, but about a year ago the slate was wiped clean. No legal precedent of that era matters, and if it did, I'd be arguing the court could injunct because they could when I went after Marv!

2. The previous constitutions are irrelevant, as I have previously explained. Recall petitions for a House of Commons member in the UK require 10% of eligible electors to sign it, and that the member is already suspended by the House for ethical violations - but I'm not arguing that because that is completely and utterly irrelevant! I'm going to dispute what I see being as being a referendum run under an incorrect interpretation of the constitution all I want because that what's it for, but unlike you, I'm not complaining on the RMB that I think something is illegal, I'm actually going to the court and getting an answer, because the court is the final authority on these things.

I am also not disputing the legality of the petitions at this time - something you'd know if you'd actually read what I submitted to the court, but again, you haven't, because you aren't interested in actually debating that, you're interested in attacking your opponents with baseless falsehoods and whataboutisms.

3. Very cool. Wait until there are different interpretations of what people think is best for the region too, going to blow your mind!

Regarding alto’s first point, there was never an attempt to recall multiple people at once under the prior constitution. As far as I’m aware there was no court case regarding how that should be done back then either. It’s still possible that it was resolved, but it has not been established under the new constitution and that’s what actually matters.

The Ambis wrote:

Ahh the sweet smell of RMB politics

next person to tell me politics is bad for Thaecia gets banned

Toerana V wrote:

1. All that matters in our law is what is on the books, and what has been decided under our current constitution. I'm not sure if you missed the memo, but about a year ago the slate was wiped clean. No legal precedent of that era matters, and if it did, I'd be arguing the court could injunct because they could when I went after Marv!

2. The previous constitutions are irrelevant, as I have previously explained. Recall petitions for a House of Commons member in the UK require 10% of eligible electors to sign it, and that the member is already suspended by the House for ethical violations - but I'm not arguing that because that is completely and utterly irrelevant! I'm going to dispute what I see being as being a referendum run under an incorrect interpretation of the constitution all I want because that what's it for, but unlike you, I'm not complaining on the RMB that I think something is illegal, I'm actually going to the court and getting an answer, because the court is the final authority on these things.

I am also not disputing the legality of the petitions at this time - something you'd know if you'd actually read what I submitted to the court, but again, you haven't, because you aren't interested in actually debating that, you're interested in attacking your opponents with baseless falsehoods and whataboutisms.

3. Very cool. Wait until there are different interpretations of what people think is best for the region too, going to blow your mind!

With regards to the first point, fine. With regards to Snalland's interjection, like I said I would've bet against that but he probably knows better than I do.

So just making sure I've reread your case correctly. You are not arguing against the petition or its signatures being legal? You just want the referendum to be split across four votes for each individual member?

To be honest, that is way more reasonable than deeming the entire petition as illegal, and looking at the constitution is actually decently arguable. Arguing the entire petition/election is invalid is not.

So, just making it very clear; if your case succeeds, you still want the recall referenda to happen, you just want them to be split across four votes?

If that's the case, I wasn't purposefully misconstruing your argument, I had a clerical misunderstanding and your stance is far more reasonable than I had misinterpreted it to be.

Of Altonianic Islands wrote:

With regards to the first point, fine. With regards to Snalland's interjection, like I said I would've bet against that but he probably knows better than I do.

So just making sure I've reread your case correctly. You are not arguing against the petition or its signatures being legal? You just want the referendum to be split across four votes for each individual member?

To be honest, that is way more reasonable than deeming the entire petition as illegal, and looking at the constitution is actually decently arguable. Arguing the entire petition/election is invalid is not.

So, just making it very clear; if your case succeeds, you still want the recall referenda to happen, you just want them to be split across four votes?

If that's the case, I wasn't purposefully misconstruing your argument, I had a clerical misunderstanding and your stance is far more reasonable than I had misinterpreted it to be.

You are correct, I am not arguing that the petition is illegal or that its signatures are invalid, what I am arguing is that the referendum should be split into four, one vote per MP. My request for the court to halt the referendum or halt the implementation of its results until a ruling is delivered is based on my belief that the way the vote is being held is incorrect.

My personal opinion on whether I want the votes to happen at all is largely irrelevant, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't happen in court - I don't see any rational legal basis on which anyone could object to them being run when they are run as 4 seperate votes. I, in reality, meant to remove my signature as soon as I realised that they couldn't run in the subsequent by-election, and am subsequently voting no so I clearly don't think they should be removed, but that's a discussion that is irrelevant to the court and our law.

That being said, I appreciate you talking the time to read over my brief, and am happy to answer any more questions in regards to it.

My opinion is that bow is wrong. Thank you all, goodnight!

Toerana V wrote:

You are correct, I am not arguing that the petition is illegal or that its signatures are invalid, what I am arguing is that the referendum should be split into four, one vote per MP. My request for the court to halt the referendum or halt the implementation of its results until a ruling is delivered is based on my belief that the way the vote is being held is incorrect.

My personal opinion on whether I want the votes to happen at all is largely irrelevant, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't happen in court - I don't see any rational legal basis on which anyone could object to them being run when they are run as 4 seperate votes. I, in reality, meant to remove my signature as soon as I realised that they couldn't run in the subsequent by-election, and am subsequently voting no so I clearly don't think they should be removed, but that's a discussion that is irrelevant to the court and our law.

That being said, I appreciate you talking the time to read over my brief, and am happy to answer any more questions in regards to it.

So like, hey Brototh

Why are we arguing about this? The entire case will cause a pretty large delay in getting the specials actually started dependent on the success of the recalls. So just go with what Bow wants this time and then do a constitutional amendment making the wording extremely clear. Between Thaecia and the Senate, we could get the referenda done and settled within four days and can move on with the specials. It would be faster to settle this that way and then solve the potential inconsistency through legislation rather than a High Court precedent that has 50/50 odds of making us go with Bow's course of action anyway.

Of Altonianic Islands wrote:

So like, hey Brototh

Why are we arguing about this? The entire case will cause a pretty large delay in getting the specials actually started dependent on the success of the recalls. So just go with what Bow wants this time and then do a constitutional amendment making the wording extremely clear. Between Thaecia and the Senate, we could get the referenda done and settled within four days and can move on with the specials. It would be faster to settle this that way and then solves the potential inconsistency through legislation rather than a High Court precedent that has 50/50 odds of making us go with Bow's course of action anyway.

How can I just go with what Bow wants? I opened the referenda before he ever aired his concerns. I can't shut it down halfway through, what if it's legal to host all four on one ballot?

Marvinville wrote:

didn't realize that party politics was the reason for the andy coup earlier this year bc the region was dead

it was yes, since andy tried to do stuff after region had already died xd but its ok with you back in IC activity we can get a proper funeral this time (cc Toerana V)

Brototh wrote:

How can I just go with what Bow wants? I opened the referenda before he ever aired his concerns. I can't shut it down halfway through, what if it's legal to host all four on one ballot?

I just reread Article VIII of the Constitution and L.R. 001, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything that explicitly prevents you from cancelling a referendum midway through and redoing it. That should probably be fixed, but I digress. There is nothing explicitly preventing you from doing so.

Additionally, L.R. 001 says the following: "Section I - The Electoral Commission is responsible for organizing and conducting all elections and referenda as called for by the Constitution and law of Thaecia in a manner that is accessible, impartial, and timely."

The only thing cancelling and redoing an election might violate in that, due to the fact the Constitution and the law of Thaecia do not prohibit it, is the timely specification. Yet given the court case, it is probably more timely to go with Bow's method rather than deal with a court case midway through the referendum.

You have been given a legitimate legal concern about the way an election is being managed; you are will within your authority to take action to rectify it.

Of Altonianic Islands wrote:

I just reread Article VIII of the Constitution and L.R. 001, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't anything that explicitly prevents you from cancelling a referendum midway through and redoing it. That should probably be fixed, but I digress. There is nothing explicitly preventing you from doing so.

Additionally, L.R. 001 says the following: "Section I - The Electoral Commission is responsible for organizing and conducting all elections and referenda as called for by the Constitution and law of Thaecia in a manner that is accessible, impartial, and timely."

The only thing cancelling and redoing an election might violate in that, due to the fact the Constitution and the law of Thaecia do not prohibit it, is the timely specification. Yet given the court case, it is probably more timely to go with Bow's method rather than deal with a court case midway through the referendum.

I'm mandated by the law to hold a vote for recall based on petitions. I can't not do that because I think there may or may not be a problem. I've laid down the referenda as I believe is the correct interpretation of the Constitution. If the Court calls me to, I will hold the referenda in a different manner. I cannot stop an election halfway through because my opinion may have changed (which for what it's worth, has not), or because someone else has a concern. The only way I will stop the vote is when its time expires, or when the Court command me to stop.

Additionally, if my method is correct, and Bow's method is wrong, then there will be another serious issue, because I will have halted a legal referendum halfway through in favour of an illegal one. It is better to get it wrong and be corrected, than potentially stop a legal referendum and invalidate people's votes for no reason.

New news!

Thaecia's premier news organization coming to a region near you.

Even MORE awesome images!

Historic Garfield Photos(More to Come!)(Over 140 Images!)

by The United Greater of Garfield Republics

Kyrindor wrote:

I like how it doesn't say Enjoy, it just tells you to "drink" you have no choice.

Read factbook

hello just wondering how do i boost my economy as i'm not doing well with it just someone please tell me how

UwU

Musaschi wrote:

I can't support recalling four members at once, even though I'd love to be an MP.

You will be able to run for mp soon because lythusia and Aiyland died.