(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:23 pm

2014-02-07

SECRETARY GENERAL vs PARLIAMENT

Challenging the Legality of the Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

As a blatant and obvious violation of the World Alliance Constitution

In relation to the Land Grab 2014! Happy New Year Celebration!

Thus, the aforementioned law must be declared NULL & VOID!

In our desire to uphold the basic law of the region, and in our desire to strengthen the institutions of the WA Government which includes but not limited to the Secretary General, the Council, the Parliament, the Court of Justice, and the Delegate. We do not desire to shame the Members of the Parliament, in which we are a member therewith, nor accuse the proponent of the law, Marquette, with which we are both members of the WA Royalist Party, an incumbent bloc which has members in both the Council and Parliament.

It is our desire to CLARIFY the legality of the law, thus interpreting it under the court's understanding and consideration, and humbly asks the court to SUSPEND the implementation of the law until the resolution of this pending case.

And to put things on there proper perspective, we seek the clarification of the following powers of the Secretary General in contrast to the exercise of powers of the Parliament. As Article III of the Constitution versus that of Article V states that;

"The Secretary General, as the Founder of the World Alliance, is the sole executor of administrative powers over the World Alliance and may create administrative roles, if necessary; and has the power to ban and eject any member state, which can be overturned by the Court of Justice, provided that there is a minimum endorsement from fifteen member states, as certified by the head of the Court of Justice, or there is a minimum endorsement from ten member states and an endorsement from the Delegate."

"The Parliament is the sole legislature of the World Alliance composed of twenty elected seats distributed via proportional representation whose terms of office are three months and where proposals must be approved by simple majority, within three days, to become a law. It must be headed by the Speaker, elected by the Parliament itself, which is also the tie breaker and successor to the President of the Council, in case of resignation."

As we deeply respect the Parliament, being a part thereof, notwithstanding our constitutional duty to maintain the efficiency and enjoyment of the region being the Secretary General, it is our belief that having INVOKED those provisions of the constitution, the Land Grab 2014, which is just a celebratory act of the region for the New Year, is solely under the discretion of the Secretary General notwithstanding the rules and guidelines implemented thereof to ensure equal opportunity for all, as prescribed in the Constitution.

Not to mention, that since ALL NATIONS, have regularly seek permission to the MAP ADMINISTRATOR, which is in this case is the Secretary General with the help of Dromoda, that whenever changes has to be done on the map, it is the discretion, as protected by the Constitution, of the Secretary General in deciding the management of the map. Notwithstanding the FACT, that since nations have enjoyed and accepted this system and in belief of fairness due to the existing guidelines thereof, the law have violated as well the following rights of ALL inviolable under the WA Constitution.

* Right to exist - as nations have willingly participated in the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, accepting the rules and guidelines thereof and NO LAW can simply revoke what they possess already as nations only followed the guidelines of the Land Grab 2014.

* Right to self determination - as nations have chosen to participate in the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW can simple revoke their territories already approved in the map.

* Right to due process and fair trial - as nations have only followed the rules and guidelines of the Land Grab 2014, thus, in effect, NO LAW must infringe their rights to revoke all the claims and lands they have just because the Parliament says so.

Hence, we rest our case and hopes for the court's constitutional verdict. We believe on the strength of our case, in ALL aspects. Thank you.

Marquette (of Pacific) Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:50 pm

Eurussia, your case does not have any sound evidence or proof to support it. By passing the law, we did not infringe on anyone's right to exist, as we did not prevent any nations from claiming land and we did not advocate for or carry out in the mass murders of anyone. Everyone still exists...

The right of Self Determination is extremely vague to begin with, and you cannot just define it in this court where it suits you. No law or clause in the constitution says we cannot revoke territories already approved by the administrator. And besides, it was indiscriminate, EVERYONE who participated got their land revoked, so it's not infringing on anyone's rights in that respect.

The Parliament chose to repeal the New Year's Land Grab because it was ridiculously extravagant and allowed nations to claim too much land, which will fill our map up too quickly.

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:57 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:Eurussia, your case does not have any sound evidence or proof to support it. By passing the law, we did not infringe on anyone's right to exist, as we did not prevent any nations from claiming land and we did not advocate for or carry out in the mass murders of anyone. Everyone still exists...

The right of Self Determination is extremely vague to begin with, and you cannot just define it in this court where it suits you. No law or clause in the constitution says we cannot revoke territories already approved by the administrator. And besides, it was indiscriminate, EVERYONE who participated got their land revoked, so it's not infringing on anyone's rights in that respect.

The Parliament chose to repeal the New Year's Land Grab because it was ridiculously extravagant and allowed nations to claim too much land, which will fill our map up too quickly.

On this NOTE, as prescribed by the WA Constitution, and we would like to even CONSIDER by the honourable tribunal, that, is the LAW itself even worthy of being called a LEGISLATION in the very first place? When the Speaker himself admitted that they are revoking an act of a legal institution in the region, which is the Secretary General?

Isn't it more appropriate to call the Act of the Parliament as an "executive action" which should have been in the very first place to be exercised by the WA Council? And if that so is the case, shouldn't it more appropriate that the WA Council be in defense of this?

ANYWAYS, WE AFFIRM TO THIS COURT THAT THIS IS NOW PART OF OUR CASE.

Planitan Commonwealth Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:19 pm

This is going to be interesting....
No offense but truthfully I don't think you can sue us if you don't get want you want. Few of us would be bold enough to do this.

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:41 pm

Freedom Planita 2 wrote:This is going to be interesting....
No offense but truthfully I don't think you can sue us if you don't get want you want. Few of us would be bold enough to do this.

Yeah, it is really unique in a sense. It looks like we are a vibrant democracy :-)

Marquette (of Pacific) Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:48 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:Eurussia, your case does not have any sound evidence or proof to support it. By passing the law, we did not infringe on anyone's right to exist, as we did not prevent any nations from claiming land and we did not advocate for or carry out in the mass murders of anyone. Everyone still exists...

The right of Self Determination is extremely vague to begin with, and you cannot just define it in this court where it suits you. No law or clause in the constitution says we cannot revoke territories already approved by the administrator. And besides, it was indiscriminate, EVERYONE who participated got their land revoked, so it's not infringing on anyone's rights in that respect.

The Parliament chose to repeal the New Year's Land Grab because it was ridiculously extravagant and allowed nations to claim too much land, which will fill our map up too quickly.

On this NOTE, as prescribed by the WA Constitution, and we would like to even CONSIDER by the honourable tribunal, that, is the LAW itself even worthy of being called a LEGISLATION in the very first place? When the Speaker himself admitted that they are revoking an act of a legal institution in the region, which is the Secretary General?
Isn't it more appropriate to call the Act of the Parliament as an "executive action" which should have been in the very first place to be exercised by the WA Council? And if that so is the case, shouldn't it more appropriate that the WA Council be in defense of this?
ANYWAYS, WE AFFIRM TO THIS COURT THAT THIS IS NOW PART OF OUR CASE.

Sure, it's an executive power that was exercised by the Parliament, but nowhere does it say that we cannot exercise the powers we have. It was a piece of legislation that I proposed to the Parliament and it was a piece of legislation that was passed by the Parliament.

You may be the sole "executor" of administrative powers in the region, but that doesn't mean that only you have the power to change things in the region.

The Secretary General is the Founder of the World Alliance which shall be responsible in governing the Secretariat which in turn shall be in charge with the administration of the World Alliance Government and its institutions and must be responsible in the checks and balances among the branches of government of the World Alliance.

Was not the Parliament acting in charge of the administration of the map? Is not the map an institution of the region? Were we not exercising our power to check the position of the Secretary General for what we saw as sweeping powers that we did not grant him?

Atletius Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:02 pm

Surely this is nothing less than contempt for parliament, just because you disagree with the results of the vote you call them unconstitutional, despite the fact the constitution clearly states parliament is the "sole legislature".

This case has no legal merit and should be dismissed at once,

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:16 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Sure, it's an executive power that was exercised by the Parliament, but nowhere does it say that we cannot exercise the powers we have.

We appreciate this argument coming from the Speaker. As it has been admitted that the Speaker knew from the very beginning that the proposal, now the law, is an executive act. Thus, making the law even UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as it has been explicitly stated there that only the Council is the sole executive organ of the region.

WE SUBMIT THIS AS PART OF OUR EVIDENCE.

New-Zealand Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:59 pm

If I may say something. There are four levels of management in the World Alliance.

They are :

1) The Legislative Body (Parliament) - This is basically RP Based laws and legislations. The bodies which can question or contradict the operation of the Council is the COJ and the Council.

2) The Executive Body (Council) - This body passes laws relating to OOC laws, constitutional changes. On top of this, they "supervise" the parliament. (That's why I took up a Council case when I thought the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" law didn't go through proper voting procedure, I was wrong though, so the Council Meeting was dismissed). The only bodies which can question or contradict the operation of the Council is the COJ.

3) The Administrative Body (Moderators, Secretary General, Delegate) - The people in this body all have independent tasks ranging from policing the RMB to managing the forums or maps. These people thus have complete authority over their individual tasks. For example, Eurussia and Dromoda have complete authority over the maps and all map related things (Such as expansions and Land Grabs), however Eurussia has the right overrule Dromoda on map related things. The only body with power to question or contradict this organ is the COJ.

4) The Judicial Body (Court of Justice) - The court of justice has ultimate power and it's verdicts are final. They have the ability to reverse, contradict or question the actions of EVERY member and body in the WA. As far as the authoritative hierarchy goes, the COJ is at the very top, they are king.

I just though that as delegate I should probably just inform you all. I'm apologise for any inconvenience my interruption has caused the Court.

New Tarajan Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:52 pm

This is case is serious, more than interesting.

I agree completely with the position expressed by Atletius. Here we are seen an attempt to overcome the will of the Parliament. People may agree or disagree on the issue of the Land Grab, but the Parliament analyzed the bill, and approved it. Its constitutional ground has been confirmed even when New-Zealand (following a correct procedure) decided to propose a repeal to the Council.
This case has absolutely no merit: first of all, it has been structured as a trial, of the Secretary General against the Parliament, and not as a complain, or a request of investigation of the Court over the issue (which would have been far more acceptable).
Secondly, the recall of constitutional rights in this case is, at least, an exaggeration, which risks to only complicate the issue in front of the Court.
Thirdly, even if the Secretary General has administrative powers (which obviously include the Map Administration) and the Parliament has legislative powers, the position of the Land Grab is clearly ambiguous on this sense: indeed, since it greatly influence RP balances, and things which are comprised in the sphere of competence of the Parliament itself, this body was legitimate to legislate over it.

I wish also to say that the last evidence proposed is a non-sense: Marquette simply made a mistake,defining it as an "executive power", so, it is unuseful, and stupid, to use those words as evidences for this case.
Thank you, and I ask sorry to the Court for the interruption.

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:08 pm

New-Zealand wrote:If I may say something. There are four levels of management in the World Alliance.

They are :

1) The Legislative Body (Parliament) - This is basically RP Based laws and legislations. The bodies which can question or contradict the operation of the Council is the COJ and the Council.

2) The Executive Body (Council) - This body passes laws relating to OOC laws, constitutional changes. On top of this, they "supervise" the parliament. (That's why I took up a Council case when I thought the "Revocation of the New Years Land Grab" law didn't go through proper voting procedure, I was wrong though, so the Council Meeting was dismissed). The only bodies which can question or contradict the operation of the Council is the COJ.

3) The Administrative Body (Moderators, Secretary General, Delegate) - The people in this body all have independent tasks ranging from policing the RMB to managing the forums or maps. These people thus have complete authority over their individual tasks. For example, Eurussia and Dromoda have complete authority over the maps and all map related things (Such as expansions and Land Grabs), however Eurussia has the right overrule Dromoda on map related things. The only body with power to question or contradict this organ is the COJ.

4) The Judicial Body (Court of Justice) - The court of justice has ultimate power and it's verdicts are final. They have the ability to reverse, contradict or question the actions of EVERY member and body in the WA. As far as the authoritative hierarchy goes, the COJ is at the very top, they are king.

I just though that as delegate I should probably just inform you all. I'm apologise for any inconvenience my interruption has caused the Court.

Thank you for strengthening further our CASE.

I am also inclined to submit this as EVIDENCE as it also represents the hierarchy and division of powers as prescribed within our Constitution, at the very least.

Europe and Asia Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:36 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:

It is our desire to CLARIFY the legality of the law, thus interpreting it under the court's understanding and consideration, and humbly asks the court to SUSPEND the implementation of the law until the resolution of this pending case.

Request granted. The implementation of Parlimentary Resolution "Revocation of The New Years Land Grab" is suspended the cessation of this case.

New Tarajan Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:29 pm

To the Honourable Court,
we wish to ask a question: due the fact the WA Parliament is a body, and not a single person, should the Parliament elect an advocate for its own defense?

Great Eurussia Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:36 pm

New Tarajan wrote:To the Honourable Court,
we wish to ask a question: due the fact the WA Parliament is a body, and not a single person, should the Parliament elect an advocate for its own defense?

If I may interfere, it's the Speaker already. He is already an elected advocate and even officiating country of that international legislative body.

New Tarajan Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:11 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:To the Honourable Court,
we wish to ask a question: due the fact the WA Parliament is a body, and not a single person, should the Parliament elect an advocate for its own defense?

If I may interfere, it's the Speaker already. He is already an elected advocate and even officiating country of that international legislative body.

I was already thinking about it.
But never say never.

Atletius Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:41 am

I believe all members of parliament should be allowed to take an active part in this court case, as this case is clearly an attempt to overrule parliaments collective and final decision. This case is Eurussia vs Parliament after all.

Atletius Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:52 am

In my view this case should be dismissed with immediate effect.

It is clearly an attempt to evert the will of parliament. The Bill in question went under the proper amount of scrutiny that all have been placed under and parliament decided to vote in favour of it. The Bill passed by a majority, a slim majority but a majority nonetheless.

The constitutionality of the Bill has already been questioned by the Council, and it was decided that the Bill was indeed constitutional.
If this case is allowed to stand it would mean our government becoming more and more buearucratic and dysfunctional. If this case stands it sets a precedent, that almost anyone can question the will of Parliament even if Parliament is found to have acted constitutionally,

Great Eurussia Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:47 am

Atletius wrote:I believe all members of parliament should be allowed to take an active part in this court case, as this case is clearly an attempt to overrule parliaments collective and final decision. This case is Eurussia vs Parliament after all.

I think, the more mouth speaks, the more confusion there will be. This is not a battle of david and goliath just because the legislative is a group of nations (which I am part of) versus the secretariat. We are in a democratic region where checks and balances exist.

Remember that in real world, even the best laws of the land passed by congress and signed by the president can be striked down and declared unconstitutional by the supreme court if it goes against the constitution.

This won't even set a bad precented but a good one as it will wake up those who is in 'power' that they can't easily turn the world upside down just because of a mere support but rather their acts could withstand ALL LEGAL SCRUTINY just like what will happen :-)

Atletius Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:24 am

I agree that this isn't David vs Goliath, however I believe all the proper checks and balances were followed.
You say this is a wake up call for those in 'power' but this ultimately nothing less than trying to strip an elected body of its power.
Yes, in the real world laws are struck down by the executive branch if deemed unconstitutional or deemed to be poor laws. However the Bill in question is neither of these things.

Like you say, this region is a democratic one, one where we try to produce a democratic system that is as least beaurocratic as possible. Ultimately in a truly democratic region the elected body, ie Parliament should never be overruled by a non-elected body.

Great Eurussia Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:12 am

Atletius wrote:Yes, in the real world laws are struck down by the executive branch if deemed unconstitutional or deemed to be poor laws. However the Bill in question is neither of these things.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The executive strikes down a law passed by congress due to "politics" but the court strikes down the law passed by those two bodies due to "law" or specifically questions of constitutionality.

Like you say, this region is a democratic one, one where we try to produce a democratic system that is as least beaurocratic as possible. Ultimately in a truly democratic region the elected body, ie Parliament should never be overruled by a non-elected body.

Saying "ultimately" is absolutely wrong as well. As nations of the world have different democratic system based on the needs of those nations. Yes you are true we are in a democratic region. And what is happening is the perfect example of following the constitution by way of separation of powers, as prescribed under the constitiution, which will be interpreted by now, the court.

Furthermore, you must also take note the system of our region where we have the SECRETARIAT and DELEGATE performing duties annointed by the constitution duly adopted by the whole region. That these two bodies may not be as powerful as the council, parliament, and court, elected or not, they deserve to be respected in the course of their duties and responsibilities.

Aloia Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:26 am

Atletius wrote:I believe all members of parliament should be allowed to take an active part in this court case, as this case is clearly an attempt to overrule parliaments collective and final decision. This case is Eurussia vs Parliament after all.

I'd like to point out that it wasn't really a collective decision, seeing as it was only half of the handful of voting nations in Parliament plus one. Definitely not the will of the whole World Alliance.

Marquette (of Pacific) Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:37 am

Aloia wrote:
Atletius wrote:I believe all members of parliament should be allowed to take an active part in this court case, as this case is clearly an attempt to overrule parliaments collective and final decision. This case is Eurussia vs Parliament after all.

I'd like to point out that it wasn't really a collective decision, seeing as it was only half of the handful of voting nations in Parliament plus one. Definitely not the will of the whole World Alliance.

So would you have the law repealed because it passed by one vote? What would that say to other regions if we took such an authoritarian route?

Ivania Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:42 am

Will post later tonight

Great Eurussia Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:49 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
So would you have the law repealed because it passed by one vote? What would that say to other regions if we took such an authoritarian route?

That is not what Aloia meant. He is not even referring to authoritarianism. Why would we even bothered by other regions when we are simply perorming checks and balances in accordance with own laws.

We request Marquette to stop making the court look like a forum for debates. As Speaker, we advice Marquette to focus on defending the law, however, we will not be surprised if the law has no basis to lean on, that is why we are questioning its constitutionality.

Planitan Commonwealth Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:45 am

I think that Eu technically do this as this happens all the time in the real. However, I would disprove of this greatly.

Sponsored content

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Eurussian Position

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

SG Position

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

SG Position

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Re: (Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament