Request for Review: Powers of the Deputy DoC

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: Powers of the Deputy DoC
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 16 2016, 07:03 PM (183 Views)
Frankender	Apr 16 2016, 07:03 PM Post #1
Hawk Posts: 564 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: Mar 10, 2016 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Defender Political Views Liberal	If it may please the court: I am filing a petition to the grand court to review the powers assigned to the Deputy Director of Ceremonies. I will be filing my petition using the IRAC method. ISSUE: Under the current revision of the constitution of Lazarus, does the Deputy Director of Ceremonies hold any power in the absence of the head of the department, the Director of Ceremonies? In addition, is any power needed to begin a vote in the Grand Assembly of the Phoenix? RULE: Article II of the constitution states the following: Quote: (2) All persons are guaranteed freedom of speech, petition, peaceful association and assembly so long as their exercise does not violate the rules of NationStates or the Regional Forum's terms of use. Article III of the constitution states the following: Quote: (6) The Grand Assembly may adopt its own procedural rules, and may do so with a simple majority vote. (7) The Grand Assembly shall elect a Director of Ceremonies to oversee its business. (8) The Director of Ceremonies may appoint deputies to aid them in their duties. Article VIII of the constitution states the following: Quote: (1) The Director of Ceremonies, Sovereign, and Grandee Secretary shall be considered elected offices. A "petition" is defined as follows: Quote: A formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause. APPLICATION: [1] The facts state that all persons are guaranteed the right to petition. [2] In the scope of Lazarus, a petition refers to a vote. [3] The Grand Assembly may adopt its own procedural rules, but there are no published rules stating whether or not any citizen may be able to publish a vote on legislation. [4] The Director of Ceremonies is an elected position while the deputies that serve the director are NOT elected. [5] The deputies to the Director of Ceremonies are to AID the current director. Therefore, in the absence of the director, the deputies have no role to fulfill. CONCLUSION: All citizens of Lazarus are eligible to create a vote on any matter in the Grand Assembly of the Phoenix as stated in points [1] [2] [3]. The deputy of the Director of Ceremonies holds no power in the Grand Assembly and only acts as an assistant to who holds power, the Director of Ceremonies [5]. Therefore, the deputy holds no power in the absence of a Director of Ceremonies [5]. In addition, the deputy may NOT assume the role of the Director of Ceremonies in the absence of the previous director as (s)he has not been voted into office [4]. I thank the honorable justices of the court for their time. Edited by Frankender, Apr 16 2016, 07:10 PM.



Loftegen	Apr 16 2016, 07:13 PM Post #2
Supreme Autocrat Posts: 11,070 Group: Members Member #108 Joined: Apr 23, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	Wow! Yours is much better written than mine! seethes with jealousy and feelings of inadequacy



Amerion	Apr 17 2016, 08:11 AM Post #3
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	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. Chief Justice Constie will begin an investigation into the matter as soon as possible. In the meantime, I encourage interested parties to submit briefs for the Court to review. Edit: The appellant's opening post is acknowledged to form part of his submission to the Court. He is, as others are as well, welcome to submit further details. Edited by Amerion, Apr 17 2016, 08:12 AM.



Frankender	Apr 17 2016, 02:07 PM Post #4
Hawk Posts: 564 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: Mar 10, 2016 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Defender Political Views Liberal	No further details are required from my end.



Loftegen	Apr 17 2016, 07:42 PM Post #5
Supreme Autocrat Posts: 11,070 Group: Members Member #108 Joined: Apr 23, 2015 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Neutral Political Views Independent	Frankender Apr 16 2016, 07:03 PM RULE: Article III of the constitution states the following: Quote: (6) The Grand Assembly may adopt its own procedural rules, and may do so with a simple majority vote. (7) The Grand Assembly shall elect a Director of Ceremonies to oversee its business. (8) The Director of Ceremonies may appoint deputies to aid them in their duties. APPLICATION: [4] The Director of Ceremonies is an elected position while the deputies that serve the director are NOT elected. [5] The deputies to the Director of Ceremonies are to AID the current director. Therefore, in the absence of the director, the deputies have no role to fulfill. CONCLUSION: The deputy of the Director of Ceremonies holds no power in the Grand Assembly and only acts as an assistant to who holds power, the Director of Ceremonies [5]. Therefore, the deputy holds no power in the absence of a Director of Ceremonies [5]. In addition, the deputy may NOT assume the role of the Director of Ceremonies in the absence of the previous director as (s)he has not been voted into office [4]. Filing as a friend of the Court, we submit the following: Regarding Frankender's submission, we generally agree, however: The Director of Ceremonies has the power to appoint deputies to assist them, as noted. This has been held in the past to include the ability to act as the Director of Ceremonies during temporary absences due to the demands of Real Life. The reasoning behind this assumption has been that there was still a DoC for the Deputy to aid. Therefore, the mere absence of the DoC is no bar to any Deputy DoC acting as DoC. Therefore we hold that the statements highlighted in blue are correct, and that the statements highlighted in red are incorrect. The actual question is, does a Deputy Directorship survive the end on the appointing DoC's term in office, whether that term ends by succession of a new DoC, or by the resignation or inactivity of the current office holder? If said deputy directorship does survive, then the Deputy DoC may act as DoC until a new DoC is elected, but does not automatically assume that office. If deputy directorship does not survive the end of the appointing DoC's term, then the Deputy may not act as DoC until a new one is elected.



Amerion	Apr 18 2016, 03:57 AM Post #6
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	This additional submission is noted.



Frankender	Apr 18 2016, 04:01 AM Post #7
Hawk Posts: 564 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: Mar 10, 2016 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Defender Political Views Liberal	To rebuttle points made by Loftegen and clarify any issues. Quote: The Director of Ceremonies has the power to appoint deputies to assist them, as noted. This has been held in the past to include the ability to act as the Director of Ceremonies during temporary absences due to the demands of Real Life. The reasoning behind this assumption has been that there was still a DoC for the Deputy to aid. Therefore, the mere absence of the DoC is no bar to any Deputy DoC acting as DoC. In the original post, absence refers to the position being vacated, not just just on a break. That is my fault for not being clarified. In the case of the current issue we are faced with as a region, the most recent Director of Ceremonies, Starberry, has resigned and is not able to give orders to her deputies and authorize any actions.



Amerion	Apr 26 2016, 03:30 PM 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 4 26 April 2016 As written by Amerion Petitioner: Frankender Litigant: Loftegen On submission as a Request for Review Legal questions: Does the Deputy Director of Ceremonies hold any power in the absence of the Director of Ceremonies? Furthermore, is there any power needed to begin a vote in the Grand Assembly of the Phoenix? The petitioner's submission: In relation to legal question 1: The petitioner argues that the Deputy of the Director of Ceremonies, henceforth referred to as the Deputy, holds no power in the Grand Assembly and only acts as an assistant to who holds power, the Director of Ceremonies, henceforth referred to as the Director. As such, the petitioner states the Deputy holds no power in the absence of a Director of Ceremonies. The petitioner concludes that the Deputy may not assume the role of the Director of Ceremonies in the absence of the previous director due to the fact that the Deputy is not an elected position. In relation to legal question 2: The petitioner is of the opinion that every citizen has a right to create a vote in the Grand Assembly. The petitioner cites the Mandate as a foundation for his arguement. In particular: Article II - On the Rights of the People (2) All persons are guaranteed freedom of speech, petition, peaceful association and assembly so long as their exercise does not violate the rules of NationStates or the Regional Forum's terms of use. The petitioner defines the term ‘petition’ as: excerpt A formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause. On this basis, the petitioner argues that a petition is, in the context of Lazarus, a vote on any matter. The litigant’s submission: In relation to legal question 1: The litigant diverges from the opinion held by the plaintiff. The litigant holds that the absence of the Director does not result in the Deputy being without executive standing in the Grand Assembly. The litigant notes precedence in this matter as having shown the plausibility of this transference of authority. The litigant submits additional questions for the Court to consider as part of it’s finding. The litigant questions if the Deputy’s term ends upon the conclusion of the Director’s term or whether the former’s term ends when the current Director officially resigns or is deemed inactive. Ratio decidendi: In relation to legal question 1: The petitioner argues that should there be an absent Director of Ceremonies, the Deputy of the Director Ceremonies has no power as the Director is not present. The Court finds against this statement. The Deputy and deputies in general are positions which are expected to step in when a Minister or another position of similar stature is unable to discharge the duties of said office. This is true in the case of the Grandee Secretary and the Sovereign, with the Mandate stating that: Article VI - On Security (8) If the Sovereign is absent, the Grandee Secretary -- or, if the Grandee Secretary is unavailable, the Grand Advisor next in the line of succession who is available -- shall assume the duties of Sovereign until the Sovereign returns. The Court agrees with the litigant’s application of precedence. The Court refers to the term of former-Director Gulliver, where in the absence of the aforementioned individual due to real-life commitments, the then-Deputy fulfilled the duties and assumed the responsibilities of that office until such time that the Director resumed office. The Court acknowledges the argument put forth by the petitioner that as the Deputy is not an elected official, it would go against the democratic norms of the region for said-official to preside over proceedings in the Grand Assembly. However, the Court concludes that the efficient and effective governance of the legislative organ of government takes precedence, so long as the Deputy acts in a temporary capacity as acting-Director. In relation to legal question 2: The petitioner’s application of the term 'petition', in the context of Lazarus, as meaning the ability of a citizen to open a vote is one which is not shared by the Court. The Court interprets petition to be a base action which is available to all persons in-game and in such circumstances, would be more closely defined as the power of citizens to create and promote bills in the Grand Assembly, as opposed to moving those bills to vote. This power is largely procedural and within the authority of the Director of Ceremonies as implied in the Mandate as being part of “its business”. In relation to the legal question posed by the litigant: The Court finds the authority of the Deputy to act in a temporary capacity as Director to last for the duration between the time the Director is deemed incapable of exercising the duties and responsibilities of the office and the time a special election for a new Director of Ceremonies is concluded. Obiter dictum: As was recommended in Review of Special Elections, the Court finds a statute remedy to the first legal question posed by the petitioner as being one in which the Grand Assembly confirms Deputies to the Director of Ceremonies upon nomination by the Director of Ceremonies. Ruling: The Deputy to the Director of Ceremonies may, in the absence of the Director of Ceremonies, exercise the powers vested in said-office for the duration of time necessary to facilitate and conclude a special election for said-office. The power to schedule and open a vote in the Grand Assembly lies exclusively with the Director of Ceremonies and his/her deputy(s).



Frankender	Apr 26 2016, 06:07 PM Post #9
Hawk Posts: 564 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: Mar 10, 2016 Alignment Lawful Good Military Stance Defender Political Views Liberal	I obviously disagree with the ruling as I attempted to explain what I meant by absence (there is no Director, not one that is on a break), but I am very greatful of the activity of the courts.



Amerion	Apr 26 2016, 06:30 PM Post #10
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	Frankender Apr 26 2016, 06:07 PM I obviously disagree with the ruling as I attempted to explain what I meant by absence (there is no Director, not one that is on a break), but I am very greatful of the activity of the courts. Your previous statement regarding your intended meaning was taken into account when drafting this ruling. The term 'absence' is applicable to both the indefinite and definite absence of the Director, in which case, the Deputy will take over until such time that a new Director can be elected. I appreciate your comment



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


« Previous Topic · Court Archive · Next Topic »