(Resolved) Secretary General vs Parliament

Great Eurussia wrote:

---

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.

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.

Great Eurussia wrote:

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.

Great Eurussia wrote:

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.