07-08-2020, 05:10 PM
The Principality of Demonos stands AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons;
1) Serving in a dual capacity as a Justice and any other appointed or executive position allows for a conflict of interest between the Executive and Judiciary powers of Lazarus. This would give the holder of the double office greater power and influence over decisions that single holder officers would not have. The very concept that an officer of LazCorp can serve in such a dual role ideally and unethically doubles their power. Abuse of power will not be a question of 'what if' ,but, a 'when will it' undoubtedly occur.
2) The idea of an independent judiciary would be lost with this move. Separation between the interests of the executive and/or legislative powers from the judiciary is a core value of any social contract. Should the separation of the judiciary from other mechanisms of Lazarus government be lost than so will the concept of an unbiased and objective judiciary.
3) A precedent would be established to further abolish one-person-one-office policies. This move to abridge the mandate would only serve as reason for future moves to abolish such single holder policies for other positions should active participation from shareholders come at lows.
4) This move signals to shareholders that the judiciary is to be held by the executive and any suits brought before the court would be subject to executive favor. How could any rendered judgement be seen as fair when the interests of the executive or legislative power of Lazarus taints the judgement? Most shareholders than would believe that the decision was made because "thats what the board wants..." or "its because they're juiced in with the board...". That is the very definition of corruption.
Our recommendation is to appoint some damn Justices already instead of coveting that power for yourselves!
1) Serving in a dual capacity as a Justice and any other appointed or executive position allows for a conflict of interest between the Executive and Judiciary powers of Lazarus. This would give the holder of the double office greater power and influence over decisions that single holder officers would not have. The very concept that an officer of LazCorp can serve in such a dual role ideally and unethically doubles their power. Abuse of power will not be a question of 'what if' ,but, a 'when will it' undoubtedly occur.
2) The idea of an independent judiciary would be lost with this move. Separation between the interests of the executive and/or legislative powers from the judiciary is a core value of any social contract. Should the separation of the judiciary from other mechanisms of Lazarus government be lost than so will the concept of an unbiased and objective judiciary.
3) A precedent would be established to further abolish one-person-one-office policies. This move to abridge the mandate would only serve as reason for future moves to abolish such single holder policies for other positions should active participation from shareholders come at lows.
4) This move signals to shareholders that the judiciary is to be held by the executive and any suits brought before the court would be subject to executive favor. How could any rendered judgement be seen as fair when the interests of the executive or legislative power of Lazarus taints the judgement? Most shareholders than would believe that the decision was made because "thats what the board wants..." or "its because they're juiced in with the board...". That is the very definition of corruption.
Our recommendation is to appoint some damn Justices already instead of coveting that power for yourselves!