Tweet
Opening Statement
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:
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
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:
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 […]
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 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
Do to a semi-stuiped error my post below where attack I am reposting them up here.
"
-- 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:
Comment