Case #9 -- Untimely Veto?

Togas · January 5, 2003, 23:29

This is an official case thread that will be used throughout this proceeding. I ask that only parties to this case, their representatives, and the Judges post to this thread.

I will be serving as Cheif Justice for this case, however, all of the Judges of The Court have full authority in this matter. I am merely serving as the "moderator" and will prepare the final report of The Court.

At this time, we acknowledge the following to be alleged. If any of this is incorrect, please post to this thread immediately.

Plaintiff: Skywalker
Other party in interest: MJW
Counsel for Plaintiff: (none)

Defendants: Arnelos, Panag, ManiaStarSeed, Spiffor.
Other party in interest: E_T (as a member of the cabinet)
Counself for Defense: (none)

Complaint: Cabinet Veto 1 was illegal.
Issue: Was Cabinet Veto 1 completed past the 72 hour Constitutional deadline?

Position of the Plaintiff:

Quote:

I contend that the veto was illegal and so the original law should stand! I think that the law (in the constitution) requiring that all cabinet vetoes happen withing 72 hours of the timeout of the law they're vetoing.

I am requesting that the veto be declared null and void (basically, it doesn't do anything).

The Court would like to hear from the defense. Would any or all of the defendants post his/their position to this thread.

Should any of the parties obtain counsel, please have your counsel post to this thread.

We have no objections to the parties agreing to a settlement of this issue if they choose, however we must agree that the settlement is legal before it can be made official.

--Judge Togas

MJW · January 6, 2003, 19:02

Because the defense has not posted can i go post my arugments?

adaMada · January 6, 2003, 19:49

Firstly, I'd like to inform the court that I will be representing at least ManicStarSeed in his defense.

Secondly, I'd like to move that the defense be granted some extra time to coordinate and prepare arguments. I understand that the court's time is precious and that the public is waiting, but considering the unusually high number of defendants in this case, we'd ask for extra time that we can be fully prepared and communicate with the other defendants.

Thank you.

-- adaMada

Togas · January 6, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MJW
Because the defense has not posted can i go post my arugments?

MJW, you may post your opening argument/complaint but please keep it to the law(s) that you allege were broken and what evidence your side needs to present.

Later on in the thread we may have both sides debate, but before that can happen we need to know the position of both sides, so you are free to post your position.

--Judge Togas

Togas · January 6, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
Secondly, I'd like to move that the defense be granted some extra time to coordinate and prepare arguments.

This matter is important to the People of Apolytonia, but this Judge is willing to allow you an extra day or two to prepare and coordinate, due to the number of defendants involved.

However, two other Judges need to agree with me before this is official.

GRANTED BY TOGAS --> An extention of the time to file a response by the defense. Extention will be until 12:00 EST 1/8/03.

If more time is needed, please make another request.

--Judge Togas

Sheik · January 6, 2003, 21:03

Quote:

However, two other Judges need to agree with me before this is official.

I agree

GRANTED BY Sheik --> An extention of the time to file a response by the defense. Extention will be until 12:00 EST 1/8/03.

MJW · January 6, 2003, 21:24

Mine is the veto is invaild because it came five hours late as stated in the new con.

jdjdjd · January 6, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas

However, two other Judges need to agree with me before this is official.

GRANTED BY jdjdjd --> An extention of the time to file a response by the defense. Extention will be until 12:00 EST 1/8/03.

Counselor adaMada, that is three yeas from the Court- your extension is official as stipulated above.

MJW · January 7, 2003, 00:29

Also ManiaStarSeed wrote that it was 5 hours late.

GodKing · January 7, 2003, 09:43

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
...I'd like to move that the defense be granted some extra time to coordinate and prepare arguments.

AGREE.

JUDGE GODKING

INFORMATION FOR THE USE OF EVERYBODY:

The Poll was started on 27-12-02 at 15:30 hours. It is listed as lasting a total of 72 hours.

The Post for the veto was made on 02-01-03 at 22:46 hours.

Kuciwalker · January 7, 2003, 14:33

Isn't that 29 hours late, not 5?

ManicStarSeed · January 7, 2003, 15:12

27-12-02 , 15:30
+72 Hrs =
30-12-02, 15:30
+72 Hrs =
2-1-03, 15:30

22:46-15:30 = 7:16 Hrs Late, Public Post

I vetoed it at least 2 Hrs before that. =

5 Hrs late.

How is that for opening a can of worms

I will refrain from posting as I do not want to displease my counsel.

Mss

GodKing · January 7, 2003, 18:20

You were too kind. I wanted everybody to do their own math..... oh well.

QUESTIONS: Will the defence team please state when they started talking about the veto (ie if you have a time from a pm... not the pm itself)?

Will they state when they felt they would agree to the veto?

Will they state when the first draft was made that was turned into the public post, and how or if it was distributed prior to posting?

Thank you.

Judge GK

Kuciwalker · January 7, 2003, 19:15

Sorry. I was just wondering if it was a typo or something. I accidentally added in a day.

adaMada · January 7, 2003, 20:59

First, let me thank the court for the time extension. It has proved invaluable in providing time to prepare a solid defense and to contact the other defendants. I will be posting my opening statement tonight, as it'll be ready by then and I'll be away from a computer when the deadline expires tomorrow.

Second, in regard to GodKing's question about the timing. I am working to prepare a complete timeline for the court (assuming that none of the defendants who already have all the time data want to prepare one), and will submit it as soon as I have data.

Thank you.

adaMada, Counselor

adaMada · January 7, 2003, 23:56

Members of the Court and Public,
As you all know, we are here today to discuss the charge brought against the members of our cabinet that their recent veto was illegal. Let me begin by thanking the court, the prosecution, and the public for their time.

I do not deny that the veto was, as charged, posted after the seventy-two hour limit. The defense is working to provide a comprehensive timetable of events for the benefit of the court and the public, but I can already tell you that such a timetable will not show that the veto was posted before the hours were up. Such a table will show that the cabinet made every effort possible to release the veto quickly, but it is well established that the veto was outside the seventy-two hour limit, and that is a fact that the defense cannot dispute.

Having said that, I do not see this as an open and shut case. The court is a fundamentally important branch of our government not only because of its role in settling quarrels. It is also the duty of the court to take situations not considered in the Constitution and to consider them. The knowledge that the court could handle any unforeseen situations allowed the members of the Constitutional Convention to leave many details to the people, with the knowledge that the court would be there to protect the intentions of the writers.

As such, if it pleases the court, I will now present the following motions and arguments:

Firstly, that there is an existing understanding that the needs of Real Life outweigh by far the artificial restrictions of this game. As we all acknowledge that the rules of Apolyton and the gOdz overrule anything in the Constitution, we must also acknowledge that the circumstances imposed upon us in Real Life must also be supreme in places where it is appropriate. This was stated by Ex-Justice Captain in Case 1, where he excused a breach of protocol by UnOrthOdOx, saying:

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain [/URL]

Real-life "intrudes" on us all. The Court recognizes that and does not hold it against anyone. I, myself, must return to work now […]

I believe that this principle, which has been in effect as long as the game itself, should be considered preexisting common law.

I don't believe anyone can argue with Arnelos' reason for his absence. As such, I ask the court to decide that the veto is valid, as it came within an appropriate length of time after Arnelos returned. Furthermore, I would suggest to the court that, should they hold the ‘reasonable right to interference by Real Life without penalty’ as common law, Arnelos' right as President to veto the bill would be infringed by declaring the veto null and void. He made the best effort possible under the circumstances dictated by real life, and (as such) the Veto should stand.

Secondly, that the Veto did not infringe upon the intent of the seventy-two hour limit. I would suggest that the hour limit was not intended to serve as such an artificial and arbitrary cut-off point, but rather to prevent unnecessarily long periods of delay before vetoing a bill and to prevent a cabinet from vetoing bills that were passed a long time ago. If it would please the court, I would like to quickly remind it a bit of the history behind this clause.

If you examine the appropriate article of the first draft of the new constitution, you'll see that there never was a time limit on an executive veto. The idea of a time limit was first suggested by DAVOUT in this post. The time limit was added in the next draft, which would later be passed as the new constitution. Based on the suggestion post, it is clear that the time limit was suggested to prevent overly excessive waits. It follows in reason that the Constitutional Convention choose seventy-two hours as a reasonable limit, not foreseeing such an event, and (as such) that the clause is not intended to be used as a hard limit in such a case, where ample reason has been provided for the delay.

If the court accepts that this result was not within the original intent of this clause, then I would suggest that it is within their power to rule upon the true intent. The Constitution grants the court the power to "rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations", which can be extended to mean that the court may rule upon a contested interpretation of the intent of this clause. As such, I ask the court to rule that the intent behind the clause was not to place such a hard restriction on the Cabinet’s veto powers, but instead to mandate that the Cabinet make all reasonable efforts to complete a veto within a reasonable time frame. The extraordinary situation and the clear effort by the cabinet should be enough to satisfy the court that the intent of the clause was satisfied.

Thirdly, that the court clarify that nothing illegal has occurred. It is the belief of the defense that, even if the court overturns the Veto, no law would have been broken -- the veto would simply never have legally occurred, similarly to a withdrawn bill. We would point out the practical differences between an invalid veto and an illegal action, namely that the defendants in an illegal action could be subject to later repercussions whereas an invalid veto is simply overruled. We feel that it is unfair for the defendants to be classified as criminals who have broken our nation's highest law when they at worst missed a deadline. I would ask that the court clarify this matter in ruling that nothing illegal has occurred in this instance, and that the only issue at hand is the validity of a veto.

Again, my most heartfelt thanks to the court for their time. The defense yields the floor, pending instructions from Chief Justice Togas.

Counselor adaMada

MJW · January 8, 2003, 00:06

The veto is invaild because it came after 72 hours.

1. That is the old con. ,and it did not matter because both sides agreed. And no one spoke up.
2. The intent does not matter, what it says matters.
3. I say that is true. But it does not matter 'cause no one will inpeach them. SkyWalker might not agree.

In the new con. it says "real life" only for inpeachment...

Do to a semi-stuiped error my post below where attack I am reposting them up here.

I said in that case it did not matter because no one sued over it so the compareinson is not vaild. And real life is not said in the con. so nothing can be done in its name that goes agaisnt it. Beacause nothing going agaisnt can be vaild. We really should be focusing on "what" not "why" when looking at the new con. Because "what" is the law that must be followed. What happened to Skywalker???

Option: B, I am questioning that! The con. is more important the real life when looking at the law.

MJW · January 8, 2003, 00:11

skywalker may not be done unlike me

Togas · January 8, 2003, 01:52

The Court recognizes adaMada as counsel for all of the defendants and asks, for the sake of judicial efficiency, that no other counsel be added to this matter. If any of the defendants wish to request otherwise, please PM The Court with your request and reasons.

It seems that both sides have stated their case. We will now move to the argument phase of this matter. During this phase the parties may debate this matter and The Court may ask the parties questions to further clarify each side's position.

If any party is asked a question by The Court, he must answer it to the best of his ability.

Both sides are now free to respond and argue.

--Judge Togas

adaMada · January 8, 2003, 09:27

Thank you Justice Togas.

Quote:

Originally posted by MJW
1. That is the old con. ,and it did not matter because both sides agreed. And no one spoke up.

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. Could you clarify a bit? In the meanwhile, I'll address the one or two things I think you could mean, but I'm probably shooting in the dark.

A) Captain's quote did occur during the Old Constitution, and was a procedural point, not a constitutional one. Having said that, it is important to show that the Court has, in the past, recognized the supremacy of 'Real Life', and made allowances for such.

B) As for the concept that 'Real Life' is a factor that overrides in-game restrictions -- I'd say that is a universal concept that's been upheld throughout the entire game. I'd say that the Constitution, Old or New, is entirely irrelevant to the concept. It's simply something that's been acknowledged throughout the game, and that's never been questioned before.

Quote:

2. The intent does not matter, what it says matters.

Perhaps. It is the job of the court to decide if the intention and meaning of the clause is more important than a literal interpretation of the clause itself.

Quote:

3. I say that is true. But it does not matter 'cause no one will inpeach them. SkyWalker might not agree.

I doubt anyone will impeach them -- I know of no plans to do so -- but I'd like the court to decide the legality of the issue now and avoid any possible debate at a later time.

Quote:

In the new con. it says "real life" only for inpeachment...

-- Actually, I can't even find any reference to Real Life there. Impeachment brings up another good point, however, in the only place it does address anything relating to Real Life. In Article V, Section 2g, the constitution states:

Quote:

(g) If for a valid reason the accused did not file his answer in a timely fashion, he or she will be able to make a case for filing a late answer to the Court.
(i) The Court may excuse a late filing by finding that it was with good reason.

This would seem to set a precedent for the court being allowed to excuse a late filing by finding that there was a reasonable excuse. Though this obviously doesn't apply to the specific part of the Code of Law that we are discussing, it would seem to set a general precedent that the court should be a decider of such issues. If the court would permit, I’d request that this be added to my second motion as supporting evidence in the court’s considerations.

Counselor adaMada

jdjdjd · January 8, 2003, 10:48

Counselor adaMada -

You agree the veto was not timely. You indicate that RL situations prevented the veto from being timely. In order for the Court to properly consider your defense, we need to know for each member - the following:

1. who was effected by RL situations?
2. when did these RL situations start?
3. how long did they last or when did they end?
4. were these RL situations planned or unplanned? and how much notice did those effected have before the RL situation occurred?

And finally, please comment on Article I, Section 7, part c(i); and whether Vice Ministers were available to replace DM Spiffor and FAM ManicStarSeed - should they have been effected by RL situations.

Thank you.

Justice jdjdjd

[EDIT: added question 4.]

MJW · January 8, 2003, 17:20

-

MJW · January 8, 2003, 17:27

-

adaMada · January 8, 2003, 17:34

EDIT: With typical timing, Arnelos just sent me a PM.

Judge jdjdjd,
I am preparing a response that I will post tonight. I'm trying to wait until Arnelos comes on so that I can post complete information (he's been out of contact for a day now -- I hope nothing's wrong :-\), but if I cannot, I will post the information I have. I understand that the most complete timeline is crucial for the court to make any decisions, and even once I've posted such a timeline, I will do my best to continue to piece the puzzle together and will let the court know if I find anything relevent. In the meanwhile, I beg the court's patience. I will post everything I know tonight, regardless of any holes in my knowledge.

Also, if Panag is following this thread: Would you please empty your inbox and PM me?

-- adaMada

MJW · January 8, 2003, 17:37

-

MJW · January 8, 2003, 17:59

-

Arnelos · January 8, 2003, 18:12

adaMada,

I've responded to all of your questions by PM. You should have everything you need now.

Nothing's wrong, I've just been doing potential employment-related stuff...

ManicStarSeed · January 8, 2003, 18:13

Excuse me, Counsel and Justices,

I object...

Point of order..
A judge ask the defense a question. I ask to let the defense answer the question posed without interuption "by a person of intrest" for the plantiff.

I ask that the previous four posts, by MJW be stricken from the official record (at least ignore them in this case) as they are out-of-order. The plantif shall have their chance to respond.

Mss

Edit - make that 4 posts, not two posts and added MJW

MJW · January 8, 2003, 19:07

Me bad, the posts i made while i was smoking weed are now in my 4th post.

MJW · January 8, 2003, 19:28

Where is SkyWalker?