Term 2 - Judicial Department - You may now be seated
- Thread starter donsig
- Start date
Donovan Zoi
The Return
I would like to contest your ruling regarding the appointment of Aventine's Deputy Governor.
While I can understand that the constitution is clearly stated in regards to having an election for a vacant leader position(should no deputy be available), I am asking that we not consider Article D in Plexus' case and let the appointment stand. You see, Article D states that "All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms."
Since the Constitution does not recognize deputies and the Governor's Office is already filled by Plexus, I don't see any reason not to continue following DG2 precedent for our deputy selection. Since deputies are not recognized by our Constitution, there is no Deputy's Office.
If this ruling stands, I think we should heretofore refer to the court's previous ruling on Article D as the "trickle down" electoral process. I still don't see how outright giving the 3rd and 4th place vote-getter a deputy position(or even worse, a leader position if circumstances warrant) reflects the will of the people more than submitting a new candidate via the confirmation process that the people themselves can vote on. But since that we have thrown DG2 precedent out the window with the court's previous ruling, it looks like this is precisely what we will have.
Oh, and by the way, AJ has also resigned as Domestic Leader due to continuing computer problems, so am I to assume that the position is now Fionn's with no confirmation necessary? If I am reading your previous ruling correctly, that is precisely what would happen. Can you honestly tell me with certainty that this process reflects the will of the people?
While I can understand that the constitution is clearly stated in regards to having an election for a vacant leader position(should no deputy be available), I am asking that we not consider Article D in Plexus' case and let the appointment stand. You see, Article D states that "All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms."
Since the Constitution does not recognize deputies and the Governor's Office is already filled by Plexus, I don't see any reason not to continue following DG2 precedent for our deputy selection. Since deputies are not recognized by our Constitution, there is no Deputy's Office.
If this ruling stands, I think we should heretofore refer to the court's previous ruling on Article D as the "trickle down" electoral process. I still don't see how outright giving the 3rd and 4th place vote-getter a deputy position(or even worse, a leader position if circumstances warrant) reflects the will of the people more than submitting a new candidate via the confirmation process that the people themselves can vote on. But since that we have thrown DG2 precedent out the window with the court's previous ruling, it looks like this is precisely what we will have.
Oh, and by the way, AJ has also resigned as Domestic Leader due to continuing computer problems, so am I to assume that the position is now Fionn's with no confirmation necessary? If I am reading your previous ruling correctly, that is precisely what would happen. Can you honestly tell me with certainty that this process reflects the will of the people?
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I would say Yes, DZ. If the people had not wanted Fionn to run for Domestic, they would have objected to the point where his name was removed from the ballot. Fionn had the heuvos to put his name on the list of candidates for the Domestic Leader. Therefore it was also his will, as a citizen that is reflected in this move. In this light, I would say Yes, it is the will of the people.
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
The Constitution recognises Leaders only. In the absence of Plexus, his appointed choice would become governor. The Deputy Governor would become the Governor without having been elected in the proper manner. This is where Article D comes in. The clear bias of a confirmation poll predisposes the citizens to vote yes.
There is a precedent that may be relevant here. In the recent Trade election Boots polled third but because CT declined the position, Octavian became Leader. In the absence of Octavian would there have been any objection to Boots becoming Trade Leader even though he polled third? I think unlikely mainly because CT declined immediately upon election and Boots was considered Deputy Trade Leader during Term 2. What I am trying to say is that in the election process, the highest polled candidate who accepts the position becomes Leader. It is possible due to other election results that the eventual Leader for a certain position could actually poll third or lower.
All I can do is interpret the Constitution as it is laid out.
Perhaps you should sponsor a law to clarify Article D then we wont have these confusions.
donsig
Low level intermediary
While our constitution does not specifically mention deputies we have used them since the start of DG3. Since deputies are the runners up in the various elections the judiciary has always interpreted this as fullfilling the election requirements of article D. The judiciary has pointed out many times that since deputies have the power to act for their respective leaders they do indeed fall under the restrictions of article D. Thus, appointments to the position of deputy leader are unconstitutional.
Governors are leaders just as department leaders are leaders. The need for duputies is the same and there is no constitutional reason to to treat deputy governors differently than we treat departmental deputies.
The 'trickle down' theory of elections is not the best solution but in the absence of legislation by Congress defining article D it is the most efficient. There are other ways of selecting deputies, both during our regular election cycle and mid-term. Since this is my last day on the bench I think it would not be inappropriate for me to offer a suggestion here:
If there is a deputy vacancy mid-term, hold a special election to fill the office. As long as the election is for a fixed term, this would satisfy article D. Would it really take that much longer to have nominations and an election versus an appointment and confirmation poll?
Governors are leaders just as department leaders are leaders. The need for duputies is the same and there is no constitutional reason to to treat deputy governors differently than we treat departmental deputies.
The 'trickle down' theory of elections is not the best solution but in the absence of legislation by Congress defining article D it is the most efficient. There are other ways of selecting deputies, both during our regular election cycle and mid-term. Since this is my last day on the bench I think it would not be inappropriate for me to offer a suggestion here:
If there is a deputy vacancy mid-term, hold a special election to fill the office. As long as the election is for a fixed term, this would satisfy article D. Would it really take that much longer to have nominations and an election versus an appointment and confirmation poll?
Similar threads
