Court Case 1: Term IV

[MMC]

Does that agreement include spelling? Such as 'Finer' .

[Nimitz]

No spelling is optional.

[Nimitz]

Ruling

The Court has been asked to rule on whether the "RESOLUTION: Permission to go with Germany at the appropriate time" is still valid in the light of the peace treaty with the Germans.

This case was brought to our attention by fed to clarify the issue of the legality of the executive resuming its war against Germany. An issue started when Justice Couerdelion questioned the constitutionality of the resumption of the war in the 32nd Turn Chat. This lead to the confusion that was the source of the necessity of this case. The court accepted this case because in the opinion of the senior justice it brought valid questions dealing with the limit and scope of the actions the Government can make. Now there are some who feel the court should not interfere, let the Government do its job and that if its actions are questioned it should be settled at the next elections. To these who say that the elections should be the only check we would like to remind that the constitution purposely has checks for the Government from Resolutions that the public can pass; to this court which advises on the constitution and rules on it. It is the duty of this court to maintain the constitution, protect the rights of the public even if they are in the minority, and make sure the rules of the game are followed. It should be that the public has a right to question the Government and its actions and that the Government does have to answer for their actions. It is in this line we rule.

In coming to our opinion, We have taken full heed of the specific wording of the Constitution that "the decision to go to war has to be evaluated by the Citizens". Any judgment therefore has to consider whether the aforementioned Resolution constitutes an evaluation of a future war with Germany, regardless of the recent war and subsequent peace treaty.

One factor weighing heavily on the Court was the risk that any approval to go to war might be used ad infinitum by some future government. Were a war to be approved with some other nation, would "an appropriate time" be used to justify any time that the government of the day wished to fight a war. Can the government in, say, 1800 AD pull out a piece of legislation from 300 AD arguing that the citizens at the earlier time had evaluated and approved a war? To avoid such an absurd situation, it is incumbent on the Court to set out clearer advice.

The first issue which to be dismissed is the idea of the peace treaty with Germany being a technicality and that what was really agreed was a cease fire. In the absence of any agreed scope or objectives prior to the original war, it is difficult to determine if this was part of the original plan. No evidence has been provided to support the very poor argument suggesting that the period of peace was simply a time for both sides to regroup forces and resume a war. The Court has obtained a copy of the Peace Treaty with Germany that makes it quite clear that normal relations between our two states have been resumed. By contrast, peace treaty was used in all the government memoranda reviewed by the Court until the beginning of the case. The Court believes that the Executive's current trend of naming the agreement a cease-fire would be little different from calling it a "multi-lateral trade agreement". It is the opinion of this court the only yardstick for whether this nation is at peace or war shall be the status given in the game save.

There is, however, an important issue here pertaining to Article I: The Bill of Rights (5) which states "that the government may not knowingly….give false information to the people". If the distinction between a Peace Treaty and a Cease Fire is to be Constitutionally significant, then giving an agreement the wrong name would be considered as misleading. The government has in the past month, used both names and it is my view that the continued use of the term Cease Fire on official government notices would be considered as misleading

But the existence of a definitive Peace Treaty, in which reparations were paid by Germany does not, on its own, undermine the legality of the Resolution. The question here is whether or not the citizens evaluated the plan of continued conflict with German with a view to its short-term annihilation. Clearer objectives set out in the original proposal might have avoided this since any failure to meet those objective in a particular period of hostilities would hardly be considered to have made void the original citizen vote.

But the current circumstances are very different from those present in the earlier German war. Whilst we might hazard a guess how the voting might have gone at the time – but under the current circumstances – there is little evidence we can see that would make allow me to be sure that the wishes of the citizens would have been the same. In other words, the citizens may have voted to support the previous Resolution but might also have rejected the one with the objectives of destroying the German nation.

The Court has noted that the latest resolution fails to set out any clear objectives although recognised that the astute citizen will interpret the objectives as being to destroy the German civilization. However, the Court does not consider here if the Resolution can be properly considered as an "evaluation" in the light of the ambiguities pertaining to the current Court case.

Given the lack of more clearly defined objectives in the original resolution, and limited evidence of the opinions of citizens at the time, We believe that there is insufficient reason to be certain that the citizens voting in the original Resolution would wish their views to be used to justify a second war against Germany. The terms of the original Resolution have now been fully met and this was in line with the Constitution. But there was no clear evidence to suggest that this would be a war of annihilation. In the end it is the opinion of this court that the original Resolution was fulfilled and that it was void at the time of the second declaration of war with Germany.

In making the ruling several other factors were noted . The first was the call for the Court to accept contemporary public opinion. This was viewed as nothing more than an attempt to coerce the Court into acquiescing on the question of the validity of a Resolution in order to allow the Executive to follow a policy matched by opinions voiced largely by the Executive itself. The judgment was not a ruling on whether or not Concordia could go to war with Germany but rather about whether an existing Resolution could be used to allow the Executive to go to war. In reality, the ruling is nothing more than an affirmation of the right of the citizens of Concordia to evaluate each war on its merits and does not express the authors view on the merits of a war itself.

The last point is also worthy of comment since it seems clear that the drafting of Resolutions in this field are sufficiently vague to allow citizens of very different views to give the same verdict. This is an understandable ploy used by politicians to seek a desirable result for their proposed course of action. However this does not necessarily mean that the citizens have agreed to the objectives of the government: it merely underlines there support for the course of action that the Executive see fit to divulge. The Executive has even admitted in this court that it does not wish for its detailed plans to be open to public scrutiny. Whilst the court was somewhat surprised by this admission of a hidden agenda it serves it as yet further evidence that the original Resolution cannot be seen as a vindication a wider government policy..

Finally the argument has been raised about precedents from earlier wars. Since the Court is charged with upholding the Constitution, We consider precedents set by the government to be irrelevant to the specific case.

Vote 3 to 0 Nimitz, Smellycowsquid, and Couerdelion agree.

[Zoid]

I´m glad this is sorted out then.

[Nugog]

[fed1943]

As the one who formally brought the case before the Court, I want

now to show my respect to the Court and to say my only goal was to

maintain the executive, and myself, under the rule of the Law.

And the Law, to be compleied, must be known and clearly understood.

Until something new, if any, this is the rule.

To these matters the Court is the voice of Concordia, so

Concordia has spoken.


Best regards,

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by fed1943
As the one who formally brought the case before the Court, I want

now to show my respect to the Court and to say my only goal was to

maintain the executive, and myself, under the rule of the Law.

And the Law, to be compleied, must be known and clearly understood.

Until something new, if any, this is the rule.

To these matters the Court is the voice of Concordia, so

Concordia has spoken.


Best regards,

Fed, we appreciate that the question was one of interpretation and recognise that you were only trying to clarify the issue in question. Where there are ambiguities, such questions are worthy of being aired.

As to the question of the Court being the voice of Concordia, I think there is an important distinction to be made. The Courts remit is to rule on Constitutional issues as it stands at the time. It may well be that an interpretation highlights a problem with the Constitution itself but this can be rectified with a democratic vote. Since it is not the Courts job to decide if the Constitution is good or bad, it may well be that the effect of a Court decision might be contrary to the wishes of the citizens.

So I wouldn’t really want to claim this as the voice of Concordia.

[Nimitz]

Originally posted by fed1943
As the one who formally brought the case before the Court, I want

now to show my respect to the Court and to say my only goal was to

maintain the executive, and myself, under the rule of the Law.

And the Law, to be compleied, must be known and clearly understood.

Until something new, if any, this is the rule.

To these matters the Court is the voice of Concordia, so

Concordia has spoken.


Best regards,

Thank you Fed. I aplaud you on your goal to try and keep the Government in the right and in line with the con. You handled the situation very well. I also have to agree with couerdelion that we are not the voice of Conordia we only speak for and defend its rules and laws. The true voice of the nation is its people and its up to them how they use it and how well they use it.

[zeace]

While I personally disagree with the final ruling, I appreciate the professionalism of the court, and I will uphold this new interpretation of the law.

I would recommend that future war resolutions consider including this phrase:

This resolution will allow the government to use peace treaties to extort items from our enemies. Therefore this resolution will allow the govenment to re-declare war with this country as long as such a declaration is made within 5 turns of a peace treaty becoming cancellable. A future adopted resolution can remove this power from the government.

Would a clause like that have changed the courts view on the matter? I do feel that the government should be able to use extortion during wars. Without this clause, the government might decide to fight a less profitable war in order to avoid needing a second war resolution.

Of course the people can still vote against a resolution containing this clause, or even change it with a new resolution in the future. I don't want to take any power away from the people in this case, as the constitution does clearly state that declaration of war is a power solely of the people.

Ze Ace
Minsiter of Finance

[Nimitz]

Simply put I think having such a clause maybe a bit of overkill. If the Government put a simple set of goals for the war and had the res stating the government is allowed to go to war to achieve them then it would perforce stay in effect till they reached their goals. Now it might be necessary to put a time limit for how long the res stayed in effect but it would allow for actions such as this peace.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by zeace
While I personally disagree with the final ruling, I appreciate the professionalism of the court, and I will uphold this new interpretation of the law.


Ze Ace
Minsiter of Finance

The court should be applauded for a job well done in the face of much opposition.

I believe the ruling is soundly argued, but there is no reason to regard it as a precedent that is set in stone. It is the opinion of the current three judges.

Hopefully it will have the result that future war resolutions are clearer as to tactics and war aims.

RJM

[Nugog]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
Hopefully it will have the result that future war resolutions are clearer as to tactics and war aims.

Like burning and pillaging, ransacking and running amok!

[Zoid]

Originally posted by zeace

I would recommend that future war resolutions consider including this phrase:

This resolution will allow the government to use peace treaties to extort items from our enemies. Therefore this resolution will allow the govenment to re-declare war with this country as long as such a declaration is made within 5 turns of a peace treaty becoming cancellable. A future adopted resolution can remove this power from the government.

That should cover all eventualities... But of course it all depends on how zelaous the court feels

[couerdelion]

Tricky question there you raise zeace since the statement of an intent of peace clearly gives the citizens a right to extend their “licence” to the government. But I don’t think this is desirable any more than “RESOLUTION: Right to declare war on anyone at any opportune time”. I would hope that such a resolution would be rejected while the option for a short period of peace suggested by zeace would still effectively translate every war resolution into “Are we allowed to destroy this civilisation?”.

I prefer Nimitz’s “statement of objective” where the intention is made much clearer as to the government plans. Given that the French, Germans, Mongols, are not reading what we write here, there is no issue with “security” which would be more understandable in a real-world situation.

As a final option, there could always be a new Resolution to restart a war