Request for review: Are special elections permitted?

Welcome to the forums of the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features

Request for review: Are special elections permitted?
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 16 2016, 04:42 PM (187 Views)
Loftegen	Apr 16 2016, 04:42 PM Post #1
Supreme Autocrat Posts: 11,070 Group: Members Member #108 Joined: Apr 23, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	It was recently suggested that a special election be held to fill the suddenly vacant position of Director of Ceremonies. Amerion Will the Deputy DoC please open up nominatsons for the position of DoC at his earliest convenience please? That raises the question: is a special election legal under the Mandate? A recent court ruling established the precedent that the government can't do things that aren't expressly permitted by the Mandate. The Mandate requires elections every three months - no more, no less. It hasn't been three months since the last election; nor does the Mandate make provision for special elections, which strongly suggests that special elections are not permissable. The Grand Court's opinion on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Loftegen



Lake Flotillas	Apr 16 2016, 05:15 PM Post #2
Also known as Rivercastle Posts: 1,310 Group: Members Member #181 Joined: Aug 2, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Nation in Lazarus Lake Flotillas	It's been done before iirc



Constie	Apr 16 2016, 05:19 PM Post #3
Chief Justice Emeritus of the Grand Court Posts: 830 Group: Accused Member #132 Joined: Apr 28, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	This request has been noted by the Court. For reference, under Article V of the Unified Legal Code, the following procedure shall be observed in these proceedings: Article V - Legal Inquiries (1) A Legal Inquiry may initiated by any citizen submitting a query of the constitutionality of a law, treaty or government policy. (2) This query must be accompanied by a legal argument to justify an inquiry; the Chief Justice will determine this at their discretion. (3) During the inquiry the Chief Justice will conduct an investigation into the matter, seeking to establish the facts. Any interested party may submit an amicus brief, presenting a legal argument to help guide the investigation and assist the Justices in reaching a decision. (4) Once the investigation concludes the Justices will privately discuss the matter, and issue a ruling resolving the issue by majority decision. (5) Such rulings will consist of a decision as to to the constitutionality of the law, treaty or government policy in question, with recommended action for the legislature if needed, and the initiation of a Criminal Inquiry should illegal activity be determined to have occurred. (6) Rulings will take effect 72 hours later, if not appealed. I will personally begin an investigation to the manner



Loftegen	Apr 16 2016, 07:14 PM Post #4
Supreme Autocrat Posts: 11,070 Group: Members Member #108 Joined: Apr 23, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	Lake Flotillas Apr 16 2016, 05:15 PM It's been done before iirc So has the appointment of acting officers, but that didn't stop the court from ruling that such was illegal.



Saeturn Valerius Liberalis	Apr 16 2016, 09:27 PM Post #5
Mild Annoyance Posts: 261 Group: Members Member #278 Joined: Mar 1, 2016	Loftegen Apr 16 2016, 07:14 PM Lake Flotillas Apr 16 2016, 05:15 PM It's been done before iirc So has the appointment of acting officers, but that didn't stop the court from ruling that such was illegal. officers =/= ministers; we've been over this



Loftegen	Apr 17 2016, 02:57 AM Post #6
Supreme Autocrat Posts: 11,070 Group: Members Member #108 Joined: Apr 23, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	Saeturn Valerius Liberalis Apr 16 2016, 09:27 PM Loftegen Apr 16 2016, 07:14 PM Lake Flotillas Apr 16 2016, 05:15 PM It's been done before iirc So has the appointment of acting officers, but that didn't stop the court from ruling that such was illegal. officers =/= ministers; we've been over this Don't be a pedant. The court's decision on the Sovereign's ability (or lack thereof) to appoint acting officers is a settled matter. Now we're exploring whether there is a general principle derivable from that ruling, namely that the various branches of government have no powers beyond those expressly enumerated in the Mandate.



Lake Flotillas	Apr 17 2016, 05:35 AM Post #7
Also known as Rivercastle Posts: 1,310 Group: Members Member #181 Joined: Aug 2, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Nation in Lazarus Lake Flotillas	Loftegen Apr 16 2016, 07:14 PM Lake Flotillas Apr 16 2016, 05:15 PM It's been done before iirc So has the appointment of acting officers, but that didn't stop the court from ruling that such was illegal. http://nslazarus.com/archive/NSLazarus/topic/8022106/1/



Amerion	Apr 24 2016, 03:37 AM Post #8
Star Destroyer Posts: 6,524 Group: Accused Member #29 Joined: Apr 9, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent Nation in Lazarus Amerion Discord Amerion#9702	THE GRAND COURTOF THE HUMANE REPUBLIC OF LAZARUS Chief Justice Constie, Court Officials Amerion & Powthran Court Finding [2016] GC 3 24 April 2016 As written by Amerion Petitioner: Loftegen On submission as a Request for Review Legal question: Is it constitutionally permissible for special elections to be held. The petitioner's submission: The petitioner who submitted this Request for Review argues that the Mandate suggest that a special election is not permissible based on inference from the Mandate. The petitioner cites Article VIII - On Elected Offices as a basis for his argument: excerpt (2) Elections for elected offices shall be held every three months. The petitioner also points to a Grand Court case Funkadelia v Loftegen. The Court concludes the petitioner was referring to the following excerpt which the Court finds to have the most direct reference to the case before the Court. excerpt The Court similarly finds that previous administration's appointment of Lazarene Liberation Army officers to be outside what is under the mandate of the Sovereign. The petitioner states that due to such finding, there is an established precedent wherein what is not expressly permitted in the Mandate, is not within the purview of particular organs of governance. Ratio decidendi: Elections are necessary for all elected positions, that being the Sovereign, the Grandee Secretary, and the Director of Ceremonies. A line of succession exists should the Sovereign be unable to discharge his/her duties, where the Grandee Secretary will assume the position and title of the Sovereign and where a special election will be held for the newly-absent position of Grandee Secretary. Such a scenario is not applicable for the Director of Ceremonies, as the Deputy to the Director of Ceremonies is not elected but rather appointed. In this situation, a special election is required to be held for the Director of Ceremonies. However, this requirement may be overlooked should the remaining term be a month or shorter. Obiter dictum: In the petitioner's submission, the petitioner states that 'due to Funkadelia v Loftegen, there is an established precedent wherein what is not expressly permitted in the Mandate, is not within the purview of particular organs of governance'. The Court finds this statement to be incorrect. In the aforementioned case, the Court found that the Sovereign's authority did not extend beyond his ministries, which the Lazarene Liberation Army - while belonging to the Cabinet offices - cannot be thought of in such a manner. The LLA operates as an separate entity as it covered in an individual article in the Mandate, similar to the Grand Assembly and Grand Court, namely Article VII - On War and Military Affairs. The Court notes that should it not be expressed in the mandate, that itself is not just cause for conclusively determining it illegal. It is the Court's purpose to interpret the Mandate and such interpretations may involve inferencing what the framers of the Mandate intended. The Court finds a statute remedy to this matter being one in which the Grand Assembly confirms Deputies to the Director of Ceremonies upon nomination by the Director of Ceremonies. Ruling: Special elections for the purpose of filling a position - not including the Sovereign - held by an elected official are lawful in situations where said-official is no longer able to discharge his/her duties and responsibilities.



Lake Flotillas	Apr 24 2016, 04:55 AM Post #9
Also known as Rivercastle Posts: 1,310 Group: Members Member #181 Joined: Aug 2, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Nation in Lazarus Lake Flotillas	Yay our courts work



Frankender	Apr 24 2016, 05:19 AM Post #10
Hawk Posts: 564 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: Mar 10, 2016 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Defender Political Views Liberal	(As I said before in the wrong place): While I do not agree with the judgement, I am happy that we don't have to pass special legislation to hold special elections.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Court Archive · Next Topic »