Case #9 -- Untimely Veto? - Page 3

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 14:01

Panag - read all of the posts in a thread before posting in it. I'm really getting annoyed at you.

I contend that, because the vote could have been taken without Arnelos, and in fact would have passed, Arnelos' absense, and by extension RL, is not a reason in this instance to allow an exception.

Panag · January 12, 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Panag - read all of the posts in a thread before posting in it. I'm really getting annoyed at you.

I contend that, because the vote could have been taken without Arnelos, and in fact would have passed, Arnelos' absense, and by extension RL, is not a reason in this instance to allow an exception.

hi ,

before you go after someone , do some things yourself , .....

there is no need for such language , ....

imagine yourself in the place of Arnelos , ....
yes it is definatly a valid reason (!)

since no-one asked the VP to take over that day or moment it was still his call , ....

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 15:16

Panag, the vote would have passed anyway! So they had no reason to delay it! Arnelos' presense or absense would not have affected it!

ManicStarSeed · January 12, 2003, 17:03

Your honor;
May I ask A question to the plantiff?
mss

Kuciwalker · January 12, 2003, 17:41

MSS - sure thing (even if I'm not the judge:P).

Nimitz · January 12, 2003, 20:42

Yes MSS shoot.

Togas · January 12, 2003, 22:30

This thread officially opened one week ago. One week is sufficient time for all parties to be heard and for a dialogue to be had about this issue. Frankly, if not for the novel argument by the defense, this case would have been open & shut and resolved by now.

I will give 24 hours for all parties to answer any remaining questions and to post their conclusions, if they so choose to. There should be no new questions asked at this point.

In 24 hours we will close this thread and The Court will meet to rule on this issue.

--Judge Togas

Sheik · January 12, 2003, 22:31

This thread needs to be more orderly.

I would like to finish this case. I say we should only allow two more questions and then maybe a final statement from each party. If two other judges will agree with me then we can finish this and make a ruling.

Thank You,
Sheik

Sheik · January 12, 2003, 22:32

Togas, looks like you and me were both thinking the same thing.

Nimitz · January 12, 2003, 23:34

I agree to togas' motion pending it 12:00 midnight EST.

-- Justice Nimitz

ManicStarSeed · January 13, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
....

I contend that, because the vote could have been taken without Arnelos, and in fact would have passed, Arnelos' absense, and by extension RL, is not a reason in this instance to allow an exception.

Are you suggesting that it is the FAMs responsibility to see to domestic issues?

Thank you, your honor...
Mss

Panag · January 13, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
This thread officially opened one week ago. One week is sufficient time for all parties to be heard and for a dialogue to be had about this issue. Frankly, if not for the novel argument by the defense, this case would have been open & shut and resolved by now.

I will give 24 hours for all parties to answer any remaining questions and to post their conclusions, if they so choose to. There should be no new questions asked at this point.

In 24 hours we will close this thread and The Court will meet to rule on this issue.

--Judge Togas

hi ,

thank you

then we can all go on

have a nice day

Che Guevara · January 13, 2003, 10:09

**** Democrat Capitalists pigs.
Your ****ing Capitalism will destroy the world.
"Keepers of the free world" in my ass, you destroyed the good name of Great Lenin, and you will be punished.

Panag · January 13, 2003, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Che Guevara
**** Democrat Capitalists pigs.
Your ****ing Capitalism will destroy the world.
"Keepers of the free world" in my ass, you destroyed the good name of Great Lenin, and you will be punished.

hi ,

can you go somewhere else to post your BS , thanks

have a nice day

GodKing · January 13, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

can you go somewhere else to post your BS , thanks

have a nice day

Yes. Thank you.

Unless either party has a closing statement, I am ready to state my decision.

GK

Panag · January 13, 2003, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing

Yes. Thank you.

Unless either party has a closing statement, I am ready to state my decision.

GK

hi ,

maybe Arnelos has something to say

have a nice day

MJW · January 13, 2003, 17:16

Ming can you ban Che Guevara. Please? Maybe someone hacked into his CPU. By the way he was spaming a bunch of other things here and it did not talk about this case.

My last arugment is that spirt and the law are 2 different things. Therefore nothing can be done in the name of the spirt because it is not spelled out in the con.!

Togas · January 13, 2003, 19:33

Sheik,

Please empty your PM box and PM me with your email address.

--Togas

Sheik · January 13, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Sheik,

Please empty your PM box and PM me with your email address.

--Togas

My PM box is empty. Ming my PM box seems messed up. I only had two messages in there and Togas is saying it is full. Is two messages the limit or is something wrong?

Either way it is now empty and I have PMed you with my e-mail address.

Kuciwalker · January 13, 2003, 20:59

My final statement is that yes, the FAM must pay attention to domestic matters as they fall under his full or partial jurisdiction, such as Senate Bills and the vetoing thereof.

adaMada · January 13, 2003, 21:24

Gentlemen of the Court,
Before you sits a matter of epic importance to our society. This is not just to those who I defend, or even those who feel that the bill should die. This issue is crucial to the future of this game itself. We must decide now weather we shall consider it merely a game, or if the obligations to others that the game presents allows for deadlines that may impose upon real life.

It is the opinion of the Defense that Real Life is far more important than anything that happens here. We feel that this case should never be in court in the first place, though we respect the plaintiff’s right to bring it. As such, the court needs to turn around now and accept 'Real Life' as a legal precedent. We already have enough trouble finding people to run for our offices -- how can we shackle those who are kind enough to lend their time with artificial restrictions during times of personal emergency?

It is up to the court now to rule that 'Real Life' is an acceptable excuse for in game delays. We don't ask the court to abolish deadlines -- not by a long shot

-- but we do ask that the court be mindful of outside influences upon the participants of this game, and that the court rule that in this instance, this influence cannot be cause for disqualification.

Thank you to the prosecution, for their excellent debate; the Court, for their patience and wisdom; and the People, for tolerating the intrusion that this case has provided. Finally, on a personal note, thank you to the defendants, for allowing me to defend them and placing their trust in me. It is an honor to have interacted with so many fine people; hopefully, in the future, it will be on happier terms.

Unless any member of the cabinet has any closing comments, the defense rests.

Counselor adaMada

Kuciwalker · January 13, 2003, 21:38

I just want to say now that I'm angry that adaMada has managed to ignore every single one of my posts. He has repeated the argument that I have REPEATEDLY said that a) I agree with and b) is irrelevent.

MJW · January 13, 2003, 21:43

Well that will help us out...

Togas · January 13, 2003, 21:49

This matter is now closed ... a half hour early but all sides have made their final comments and there is nothing further to be debated.

Do not post any further comments in this thread.

The Judges will now discuss amongst each other to see if we all agree on what the final decision should be. If we do agree, I will post a decision shortly. If we do not agree, we will debate this matter and post our decision as soon as one is made.

--Judge Togas

Panag · January 14, 2003, 05:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheik

My PM box is empty. Ming my PM box seems messed up. I only had two messages in there and Togas is saying it is full. Is two messages the limit or is something wrong?

Either way it is now empty and I have PMed you with my e-mail address.

hi ,

try "show messages from ; the beginning" both in and out box

at last this matter is closed

have a nice day

GodKing · January 14, 2003, 14:26

Sheik - try a couple of things with your PM box.

Make sure all three are empty. The incomming messages, sent messages and PM tracking.

Also, when you check all three, make sure the time frame is set to From The Beginning. I discovered recently a couple of year old PM's...

Sheik · January 14, 2003, 19:23

Thanks everything except my sent items was clear.

Togas · January 15, 2003, 14:26

Update: All Justicies have submitted their decisions and The Court is split. We will now try to resolve our differing opinions. If we cannot, a majority and minority decision will be posted, but this process will take another day or so to complete, minimum.

--Judge Togas

Togas · January 17, 2003, 01:06

The Case has been resolved, I have forwarded on the final decision of The Court to the other Justices. Once they sign off on the final decision I will post it here and in The Court thread.

--Judge Togas

Togas · January 17, 2003, 22:29

Case #9: Skywalker v. Arnelos, Panag, ManiacStarSeed, and Spiffor

Judges Involved: Togas (cheif), jdjdjd, Godking, Nimitz, Sheik.

Issue: Whether a veto issued by these members of the Executive Branch was valid

Facts: The Senate passed "Senate Bill: Forbidding the assimilation of foreign workers." President Arnelos contacted the other Executive Ministers to see if there was enough support to Veto the Bill. However, before support could be organized a close friend of the President's died in a real life bicycle accident, which caused the President to take a sudden and unexplained leave of absence to deal with this tragedy. Upon his return he again polled the cabinet, received enough votes for a Veto and posted the Executive Veto to the public 7 hours past the 72 hour Constitutional Deadline.

Several citizens protested. MJW posted an incorrect Court Thread. Soon thereafter Skywalker took up the case as Plaintiff and alleged:

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).

Defense replied that:

Quote:

Firstly, that there is an existing understanding that the needs of Real Life outweigh by far the artificial restrictions of this game.

Secondly, that the Veto did not infringe upon the intent of the seventy-two hour limit

Thirdly, that the court clarify that nothing illegal has occurred.

MJW was added as a Party of Interest for the Plaintiffs due to his unofficial call for this case to be heard. E_T was included as a Party of Interest for the Defense due to being a part of the Cabinet, but one who voted against the Veto.

The matter was decided by a Court Thread which begun on January 5, 2003 in which all parties were allowed to post their arguments and evidence. The Defendants were represented by adaMada in this Thread. Plaintiff represented himself. This thread closed on January 13th.

Decision of the Majority of The Court:

The Court recognizes that Real Life propels sudden and unexpected events our way and The Game must take a back seat. This is what happened in the present case. Arnelos was going to poll the cabinet, but then he had a tragic and unexpected Real Life Event. No other cabinet member knew about it and therefore, could not poll in his stead. This event took Arnelos from the Game for two days and by the time he polled the cabinet and had the vote for the veto, it was several hours past the deadline. The event was sudden and unexpected and took Arnelos from the Game without any warning to any other member of the Game. The majority of the Court believes the delay was brief and is within the spirit of the Constitution and the Game.

This decision does not null and void the 72 hour veto deadline in Article I, Section 7(c) of the Constitution, it merely recognizes that events can occur that may allow this deadline to be extended for a short period of time due to a Real Life event when the event is sudden and unexpected, and keeps a member of the Game away from a responsibility without notice to other members of the Game.

The Court finds for the Defense, therefore the Veto was issued legally and it remains in effect.

-- Justice jdjdjd, Justice Nimitz agrees; Justice Godking joining in the Majority Opinion.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Godking:
In my opinion, the issue adaMada has raised is by far the more significant. The constitution is a guideline for how we are to play this game. The key word in this is game. It is my opinion that in recognizing that this is in fact a game, to be played for the fun and enjoyment of all the members, we must by necessity recognize the fact that other items or issues may in fact emerge that may prohibit the game from being played, and that these issues are often more important than the game itself.

The guideline in the constitution requiring the posting of the veto within 72 hours is in the constitution to help prevent unwarranted delays to the game. Looking at the amount of delay (minimal) and the causes behind it (the sad RL situation Arnelos experienced) I find that the spirit of the constitution was not violated.

I do recognize the importance of following the rules. I also recognize that this could be setting a dangerous precedent. However, the fact that issues outside the game take priority within the life of someone playing the game (as an elected official) needs to be recognized as well. The facts of this case indicate that Arnelos, despite the situation that caused him to be absent for 2 days, did come back and work very hard for the betterment of us all.

One other concern of mine is the frivolous nature of this complaint. We have experienced more court cased in the past 2 months than at any other time in the entire glorious history of our nation. Many of these cases have in my opinion not served the nation, but rather the people involved who enjoy the legal processes more than the game itself. The court was set up to handle issues that arise within the game, not to be a game unto itself. I know that I will not be seeking re-appointment next month as I am more interested in the game, not the sideshow this court has become.

--Justice Godking

Opinion of the Minority of The Court:
The Minority believes that real life does take precedance over the game, however, by allowing the veto to stand we will set a bad precedant for future cases. The veto is invalid because it missed the deadline. The Court should not be put in a position where it must decide whether every excuse is valid or not. The deadline is there for a reason. And in the opinion of the Minority of The Court, the veto is invalid, but certainly not illegal.

-- Justice Shiek; Justice Togas joining in the Minority Opinion.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Togas
I can agree with the Majority that in situations where Real Life has prevented an individual from complying with a deadline that we can grant some good cause for a minimal delay... so long as the individual shows that he was trying in good faith to comply and makes a showing that he was prevented. However, in the present case there is no evidence that Arnelos was prevented from meeting the deadline and certainly Arnelos's Real Life event did not affect the ability of the other Cabinet members from meeting the deadline. The Constitutional Veto power is shared by 5 individuals and any three of them may use it with or without the President's presence.

I also agree with Justice Sheik that The Court should not be put in a position where it must decide whether every excuse is valid or not. This case sets a bad precedent that is only going to cause further cases to clarify what is and what isn't a legitamate excuse for missing deadlines. I dissent for this reason as well.

-- Justice Togas