Judge Advocate Review - Proposed Change to Code of Standards - Section J
Absentee Leader
In accordance with Section E, Point 6, multiple subsections, of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this proposal, already reviewed and approved by a majority of the Council in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=383396#post383396
Findings: The JA office has determined that this change would not be a violation of the Consitution, section G, or any other section of that document.
Therefore I cast my vote in favor of maintaining the approved Standard.
Explaination: I find great merit in many of the arguments against this measure posed in the threads, especially those made by our esteemed former President. I will post my opinion on such interpretation below.
To the specific matter posed here though, that being, can this Standard, as apporved by a overwhelming Council vote, be found Constitutional. I have to say yes.
It is my opinion that Section G of the constitution relates to the constitutional requirement to hold elections every thirty days, and to protect that requirement by making it nearly impossible for a renegade President or Council to change those terms.
I do not find any way to interpret that section within the whole of the constitution as a binding contact that guarentees an individual their month of service. We have always intended this new Constitution to provide general guidelines and protections that are then clarified through laws and standards, this measure was a valid method of doing so.
Therefore I feel it is well within the bounds of our laws to allow the government to further define the manner in which positions can be declared vacant, and the manner in which that issue is handled.
Other Comments : All of that being said, I would have voted against the change in a council vote had I held an office that could vote.
I feel that the impeachment rule should be used to either prompt a resignation or actual eviction. I would also have prefered wording that required a impeachment in all cases involving an actual council member.
However, I am opposed to legislating from the bench in real life and in forums, and the change as worded does not provide me with the latitude to "interpret it" in the manner I like, so I will not attempt to modify this change further via the bench. I hope that concerned citizens will use their strong powers to do so should they be so inclined.
Finally, I had ceded my power to the Chief Justice during my planned six day absence, so this office was not abandoned during that timeframe. I thank Shaitan for allowing me my cut on this matter, and apologize to all for the delay.
Bill
)
