Case #9 -- Untimely Veto?

[Panag]

Originally posted by MJW
-

hi ,

since this is a courtcase thread its not nice to see "edited" post's , .....



have a nice day

[MJW]

I did that when MMS asked for them to be killed.

[GodKing]

MJW - it looks like you are not using quotes right. type before the quote ]quote[ and after ]/quote[ to get the blue text and so forth. I reversed the ][ so you can see what I am doing.

adaMada and Arnelos, am I reading this correct in that Arnelos and Spiffor discussed and concluded to go ahead and veto this PRIOR to your unexpected leave Arnelos? Please clarify for me.

Thanks, GK

[Kuciwalker]

Sorry, I haven't been on for 24 hours. I'll post my arguments now.

It seems to me that you've already decided that the vote was taken after the deadline. This is in clear violation of the NewCon. That is all well and good, but we need to address the issue of whether or not an exception would be allowed.

I think that real life is a perfectly valid reason for an exception. I would defend anybody being charged for something that was beyond their control. However, it is apparent that real life was NOT the cause of the delay in this instance, because the veto could have been posted prior to Arnelos' return. So real life is not a reason to grant an exception in this specific case.

The other reason for an exception, frivolty, has its own problems. While I agree that five hours is "frivolous", I contend that we must follow the limits EXACTLY or they will slowly degrade into nothing, a few hours at a time.

[adaMada]

Judge GodKing,
You are indeed reading this correctly. Arnelos and Spiffor had discussed the issue at length, and Arnelos was very close to being ready to release the veto ballot when Arnelos was forced to leave the game temporarily.

Judge Togas,
I'm working on preparing the arguments that you asked for. It's a complicated issue, and I want to do it justice, so I can't honestly give it an exact timeline other than "as soon as possible" -- ironically enough, my own real life is interfering a little bit . (Nothing serious, just a busy day). I will do my best to get these arguments to the court as soon as possible -- most of them will be taking the arguments I've already posted and refocusing them on that specific issue.

So as to not delay the process any further than is absolutely necessary, however, please let me address one specific point skywalker makes which (I believe) may be incorrect, that he may clarify for the sake of the court (or for my own sake) should he desire to do so. I ask the court to forgive me for leaving Togas' question temporarily unanswered, as this is a small point, which I can reply to now.

However, it is apparent that real life was NOT the cause of the delay in this instance, because the veto could have been posted prior to Arnelos' return. So real life is not a reason to grant an exception in this specific case.

The Veto couldn't be posted before Arnelos returned for several reasons. First, the vote wasn't taken until Arnelos came back -- Spiffor and Arnelos agreed to ask for a veto from the cabinet, but Arnelos was not able to take a vote before he left. As the vote had not been made, the veto couldn't be posted – legally, it didn't exist outside of the realm of discussion. Secondly, as far as I know, Arnelos wasn't able to tell anyone that he was leaving before he left. As such, the only cabinet member who knew about the Veto (Spiffor) couldn't be expected to send it around in Arnelos' place. Finally, Arnelos was the sponsor of the Veto. As only one other knew it existed, and no one knew Arnelos was away, no other member of the cabinet could be expected to send the veto proceedings out.

Thank you.

Counselor adaMada

[Nimitz]

MJW - Do you think RL in no way takes precident over the game and if so why?

adaMada - Why do you think the court should allow excuses for missing a dead line, why should something take precident over the Con?

Both - Also do you think the court has to follow the letter or intent of the law and why?

[MJW]

The new con. is the law that MUST be followed. And not over turning a veto that was late is invaild because it goes against the new con. if you follow the letter. We should follow the letter beacuse it is the law. The letter is the law because in the con. Because the con. does not give any power to the intent of it.

[Kuciwalker]

adaMada,

The argument of the plaintiff is that the vote could have been taken without Arnelos, and so RL is not a sufficient reason for an exception.

MJW,

Please stop. You're not helping our side.

[Nimitz]

skywalker in the future could you please be more polite when addressing the other parties.

[Kuciwalker]

Ok.

Post edited.

[Nimitz]

The court thanks you.

--Justice Nimitz

[adaMada]

Judge Togas,
Our argument would be that there's a general preexisting understanding that Real Life is an acceptable excuse for missing artificial in-game deadlines. Just as we have a general preexisting understood law that Apolyton rules are supreme in all cases -- even where it is not explicitly defined in the CoL -- we also have a general preexisting understanding that Real Life is a supreme force. Both are similar - practical - concerns. Who would play a game that interfered with the lives of the participants? As such, this has always been accepted by all, and never challenged in Court. In the rare places that it has surfaced in any legal fashion, the populace and the court have always excused it -- such as the case I quoted in my introductory argument, where Captain excused UnOrthOdOx for a breach of procedure rendered necessary by Real Life.

For the first time ever, we now see this concept challenged in court. The defense contends, however, that this concept has always existed, and the only novel thing we ask is that it is legally recognized. In the past, such cases have simply never come to court -- no one has been willing to press them.

The people did ask that such a deadline be added in this case, and I do not ask you to rule that the deadline itself is invalid. I strongly believe that the deadline is a good thing, but I don't believe that either the ConCon OR the people wanted a deadline so that a veto under these circumstances would be turned down -- it was mainly intended to prevent abuse and ensure that aspects of the bill were not carried out before the veto. As for precedent, I don't believe it would be a problem with any such ruling, as it would be up to the defendant charged with a crime to make his case to the court, assuming the prosecution was either successful or uncontested in arguing that a breach of protocol occurred. Considering that this concept has been functionally in place since the conception of the game, the court acknowledging it would not place any undue stress on the game itself. As long as the court judiciously applies this precedent in the few cases it concerns, I don't foresee any future problems. If the court is concerned about abuse, it could always rule that it only applies to unexpected and unavoidable situations, which would serve the same utility -- in fact, I myself would personally prefer this ruling to another (less restrictive) one.

Why do I believe that the court has the right to enact this ruling? Mainly, the court would merely be establishing that such an overruling law already exists rather than enacting such a law themselves. In addition, however, there is always the clause in the impeachment articles that allows for such a plea to the court in the case of a missed deadline, which would be constitutional precedent for this case. Finally, the court has the power to rule upon "issues of national importance" -- which this case clearly is. The court is also allowed to make interpretations of the Constitution (Article 6, Section 4), which gives it the power to rule that the makers of the Constitution considered Real Life emergencies above the game issues dealt with in the Constitution itself.

Justice Nimitz,
In addition to what I've posted addressed to Togas above, there is also the second issue I've presented. I believe the seventy-two hour statement's true meaning and intent is that the Cabinet must produce the veto in a timely manner. The Constitution does go as far as to define a timely period as three days. Having said that, it is up to the court as to weather the constitution means literally seventy-two hours or if it means that the cabinet must release the veto within a reasonable time (roughly three days of the bill passing). I won't repeat my full argument on the issue here unless you desire that I do, since it's basically what I've posted above and in my opening statement . Having said that, why do I believe that the court has the power to rule on this issue? Quite simply, Article 5 Section 4 of the constitution says:

4 The Court shall resolve all conflicts of law. The Court’s ruling on an interpretation of law is of the same power and authority as that law.

Should the court decide to interpret the clause in question as having the intent of insuring timely vetoes, the power is certainly theirs to use.

Thank you. If you have any further questions, or if I have missed any point of any of the ones you have asked, please let me know.

Counselor adaMada

SIDENOTE: I'm writing the actual text of my answer rather late at night my time, so please excuse any stupid mistakes .

[Kuciwalker]

adaMada,

Again, I agree that RL is an acceptable excuse for a delay - but that's not the issue at hand. I am arguing that the delay was not cause by RL, and therefore the court should not make an exception for it.

[MJW]

There is no amendent to the con. that says the rights or people and things that are not stated in the con must be honored. In other words the con does not give any power to the spirt of the game. Also it is a preexisting noation that the law is more imporant the spirit. In the classic Redwang vs. Mr. Orange...

Minority opinion regarding the issue of Libel by Sheik. I do believe that Reddawg’s comments where rude and were not within the spirit of the game, however I find that he in no way broke the Code of Laws. Everyone has the right to free speech and that right is only limited by Apolyton rules.

Skywalker I should have PM about our arguments so something dumb like this would not happen.

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
adaMada,

Again, I agree that RL is an acceptable excuse for a delay - but that's not the issue at hand. I am arguing that the delay was not cause by RL, and therefore the court should not make an exception for it.

hi ,

and just how can you prove that its not an RL event , .....

have a nice day