donsig
Low level intermediary
Wrong. You can file a citizen complaint and follow judicial procedure rather than taking the law into your own hands.
Term 1 - Judicial Branch - Conseil Constitutionnel
- Thread starter Cyc
- Start date
Wrong. You can file a citizen complaint and follow judicial procedure rather than taking the law into your own hands.
donsig
Low level intermediary
OK. I have reviewed the review or the nullification of the review or whatever you want to call it. So what you're saying is that since ravensfire resigned his opinion doesn't count. If that is so (and I'm not saying it is) then it stands to reason that the judicial review should be deliberated under the new judiciary which would include ravensfire's replacement (if he actually is a replacement and wasn't the rightful AJ all along). Of course it became apparent long ago that all reason has left the judiciary.
I renew my request, no, let's make that a demand that you resign from the judiciary Cyc. When I made that request long ago it was simply on the grounds that the special election was illegal. After reading the judicial log it is now clear to me that you have no respect at all for the laws you yourself pushed for. Resign and end this circus you call a judicial branch.
dreiche2
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 320
I second you, Donsig.
Cyc, i think you have no right whatsoever to exclude Bootstoots from this. That you justify this with your responsibility to "organize the affairs ...of the judicial branch" is in my opinion just ludicrous. Also i dont understand your motivation, since as far as i can see bootstoots was rather on your side with his comment as he explained the moderator overrule to ravensfire.
Cyc, you displayed severel times now that you are not willing to comply to the law. this was for example the case as you refused to post the majority opinion as stated in the constitution, until you later you "decided" to do it.
Also you sayed that you would be dealing with a hostile bench, and obviously you are not willing to cooperate with Bootstoots.
I dont see how this whole situation is can be solved without new elections taking place.
Cyc, i think you have no right whatsoever to exclude Bootstoots from this. That you justify this with your responsibility to "organize the affairs ...of the judicial branch" is in my opinion just ludicrous. Also i dont understand your motivation, since as far as i can see bootstoots was rather on your side with his comment as he explained the moderator overrule to ravensfire.
Cyc, you displayed severel times now that you are not willing to comply to the law. this was for example the case as you refused to post the majority opinion as stated in the constitution, until you later you "decided" to do it.
Also you sayed that you would be dealing with a hostile bench, and obviously you are not willing to cooperate with Bootstoots.
I dont see how this whole situation is can be solved without new elections taking place.
Moderator Action: If the current judiciary cannot resolve this in another 2 days (or at least get a poll that will lead to a resolution up in that time), I am going to resolve it. This is ridiculous, and you are wasting all of our time.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
dreiche2
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 320
EDIT: -text removed-
I was informend from a reader that what I wrote here could be understood as a "discussion of moderator action", which is not allowed as stated in the forum rules.
Though my comment was neither ment disrespectful nor even ment to start a discussion about this action (wasnt even negative), I deleted it.
I was informend from a reader that what I wrote here could be understood as a "discussion of moderator action", which is not allowed as stated in the forum rules.
Though my comment was neither ment disrespectful nor even ment to start a discussion about this action (wasnt even negative), I deleted it.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Moderator eyrei, this matter is resolved. I have taken action to safegaurd the court from accusation by disqualifying a member of the Judiciary from participating in this one Judicial Review.
It is my responsibility to oversee the proceedings of this court, as stated by Article F of the Constitution. I have done this. You seem to put as much weight into the voice from someone on the street as you do the Chief Justice. This should not be. This is my court and I should be receiving help from the Moderators, not actions contrary to my writings.
donsig has done nothing but attack my position since I won the election to this Office, but I am the one at fault? We have a former Associate Justice who resigned and is now filing a Judicial Review on a Judicial Review and this is my fault? I have tried to run a tight ship here since taking office, but that attempt seems futile as the popularity of some of our citizens lets them rise above the law. Where does it state in the Constitution that someone on the street gets to regulate the actions of the court? Where does it state that because a Moderator is tired of listening to donsig, he gets to take over the court? All I have done is win the election for Chief Justice. That's it. Since then I've had to defend myself from the attacks of others. For what?
And you're are right about a Judicial Review being called on a Judicial Review being a waste of the People's time. But this is what I've had to put up with since taking office. According to our Laws, if we are allowed to move through this Judicial Review, this should be the end of it, whereas if the attempts by the court to control the situation are circumvented by the Moderators, this may possibly continue. Please let me handle the procedures of the court.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Regarding the Judicial Review cycle, my moderator intervention in two instances regarding the Judicial elections may make this case impossible to resolve. So it is unfortunate that eyrei or myself may have to come in a third time to settle this matter once and for all.
Please do not consider this to be a unilateral move on either of our parts, but as a matter of correcting some of my mistakes. It was foolhardy to open elections at the very same time as we were ratifying the laws for such, but that was my call.
It was also my call to give Ravensfire the opportunity to nullify his very own power by the decision that he made, which in turn opened up a black hole in our judicial system. Finding an end to this mercurial matter while invoking laws both old and new helps no-one and will have us chasing our tails well into the next month.
Because of this, I will stand by eyrei's 2 day deadline but will help in any matter you request. Once again, my apologies for all of this.
Please do not consider this to be a unilateral move on either of our parts, but as a matter of correcting some of my mistakes. It was foolhardy to open elections at the very same time as we were ratifying the laws for such, but that was my call.
It was also my call to give Ravensfire the opportunity to nullify his very own power by the decision that he made, which in turn opened up a black hole in our judicial system. Finding an end to this mercurial matter while invoking laws both old and new helps no-one and will have us chasing our tails well into the next month.
Because of this, I will stand by eyrei's 2 day deadline but will help in any matter you request. Once again, my apologies for all of this.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Well if we're going to have more Moderator intervention, it should involve removing Judicial Review DGIVJR3 from the slate. If we are correcting the situation with the wave of a hand, then removing this Judicial Review and making sure no other legal actions available in normal situations are directed towards the Judiciary elections. Even though we have had to have the Moderators step in 3 times already, as Moderator eyrei declared the Associate Justice election invalid after the initial elections ended, the people who feel they didn't benefit enough from these Moderator actions have constatntly complained and attacked the Chief Justice position. This has been allowed by the Moderators and this is the reason our problems exist today. Let's address the problem at its core, that problem is citizens rebelling openly against each Moderator action.
Let's also let the Judicial Branch return to a position of authority of interpreting the Law.
Let's also let the Judicial Branch return to a position of authority of interpreting the Law.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
As a side note to the existing Judicial Review, no Citizen's Discussion thread will be posted in the Citizen's Sub Forum until Bootstoots has named his Pro Tem Associate Justice for the Judicial Review.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
That is what we plan to do within in two days if there isn't some sort of solution. Frankly, I find these legal arguments fascinating. But no one is at fault here but me, Cyc. So please quit trying to assess blame elsewhere.
Cyc, it is obviously not resolved because only a very few people seem satisfied with it. Now, I suggest you stop trying to convince everyone that everything is fine, and do something to resolve the issue.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
we've had two people post in oposition of my plan to safegaurd the current JR from further JR's. That is donsig and dreiche2. If this plan is allowed to be cared out, further problems will be curtailed. How can you expect the Judiciary to be successful in its duties if you keep taking away the authority granted to it because a couple of people like to post in opposition of the CJ's writings.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Two days?
I ask the moderators to step in now, and completely resolve the issue. As Donovan points out above, this matter stems all the way back to the initial moderator action which interfered with an election.
Then a new election was held, as directed by a moderator, and some of our more vocal citizens don't feel that was a valid election. Thus leading to turmoil.
A few days back I asked the moderators to simply mandate that the results of that election will stand, so that we could move on. My reasoning was simple, in that the judicary was being asked to determine their own validity, when in fact all three of them had won their election, mandated by a moderator.
Donovan did indeed validate that election. Case closed right? No. Instead, the judicial review of the topic was allowed to go forward, even though in theory, there is no longer an issue to resolve. Instead, two members of the judiciary wanted to right the wrong from the initial election (that is the way I saw it, but obviously they have their own reasons) and came up with a ruling that was both against our own laws, ignored the moderator's ruling, and in fact held a coup in the Judicial Branch of our government.
Now we have already jumbled the members of the judiciary. We still have some calling for Cyc's resignation (even though all he did was win a moderator set up election, so I still cannot fathom why it is Cyc's fault). We have a trusted and valued judiciary member who gave up their seat thinking they were doing the right thing despite it being against the law. We have boots now devoiced in his JR capacity because of a silly law that somehow we created (I will be opening a citizen discussion today to end the practice of private judiciary deliberation). We have Peri, who is by all accounts a fantastic jurist being slapped around in position like a ping pong ball. Finally, we have eyrei asking Cyc to somehow solve all of this mess, and frankly that finger pointing is misplaced.
Where did the problems begin? With the first election, when moderator stepped in.
I respectfully submit that when you decide to moderate, it needs to be a complete solution, and not one that is half way and hangs the CJ and judiciary itself out to dry.
The discussions may be interesting, but again, no matter any outcome of these discussions, they are not going to be legal because they step from an action that was not based in the law.
I think that rather than letting everyone beat each other up over the "non" laws that the Moderator should:
1) Mandate that the initial follow on election that put Cyc, Boots, and Ravensfire in place is official, and the topic is closed.
2) Peri is properly in place as AJ, now that raven has resigned.
3) All reviews and discussion of this issue and related problems are moot given that it was moderator action that started the ball rolling in the first place.
4) Or, in the alternative, dissolve the judiciary and hold immediate new elections for all offices. I don't recommend this one though.
I am sure many will disagree, including the CJ himself, who I can tell wants to solve this problem, but given the convoluted steps taken already, I remain convinced that there is no other way to move on.
I ask the moderators to step in now, and completely resolve the issue. As Donovan points out above, this matter stems all the way back to the initial moderator action which interfered with an election.
Then a new election was held, as directed by a moderator, and some of our more vocal citizens don't feel that was a valid election. Thus leading to turmoil.
A few days back I asked the moderators to simply mandate that the results of that election will stand, so that we could move on. My reasoning was simple, in that the judicary was being asked to determine their own validity, when in fact all three of them had won their election, mandated by a moderator.
Donovan did indeed validate that election. Case closed right? No. Instead, the judicial review of the topic was allowed to go forward, even though in theory, there is no longer an issue to resolve. Instead, two members of the judiciary wanted to right the wrong from the initial election (that is the way I saw it, but obviously they have their own reasons) and came up with a ruling that was both against our own laws, ignored the moderator's ruling, and in fact held a coup in the Judicial Branch of our government.
Now we have already jumbled the members of the judiciary. We still have some calling for Cyc's resignation (even though all he did was win a moderator set up election, so I still cannot fathom why it is Cyc's fault). We have a trusted and valued judiciary member who gave up their seat thinking they were doing the right thing despite it being against the law. We have boots now devoiced in his JR capacity because of a silly law that somehow we created (I will be opening a citizen discussion today to end the practice of private judiciary deliberation). We have Peri, who is by all accounts a fantastic jurist being slapped around in position like a ping pong ball. Finally, we have eyrei asking Cyc to somehow solve all of this mess, and frankly that finger pointing is misplaced.
Where did the problems begin? With the first election, when moderator stepped in.
I respectfully submit that when you decide to moderate, it needs to be a complete solution, and not one that is half way and hangs the CJ and judiciary itself out to dry.
The discussions may be interesting, but again, no matter any outcome of these discussions, they are not going to be legal because they step from an action that was not based in the law.
I think that rather than letting everyone beat each other up over the "non" laws that the Moderator should:
1) Mandate that the initial follow on election that put Cyc, Boots, and Ravensfire in place is official, and the topic is closed.
2) Peri is properly in place as AJ, now that raven has resigned.
3) All reviews and discussion of this issue and related problems are moot given that it was moderator action that started the ball rolling in the first place.
4) Or, in the alternative, dissolve the judiciary and hold immediate new elections for all offices. I don't recommend this one though.
I am sure many will disagree, including the CJ himself, who I can tell wants to solve this problem, but given the convoluted steps taken already, I remain convinced that there is no other way to move on.
donsig
Low level intermediary
As the vocal citizen I will continue to state my objections to moderators stepping in an setting things right. The proper function of moderators is to enforce forum rules, not demogame rules. They should act as referees to ensure there are no low blows but they should not act as judges.
My original call for Cyc to resign was no different than Bill_in_PDX's call to have Peri's position on the judiciary justified by an official appointment. I did not call for Cyc's resignation because I thought he was unfit for the office nor because I felt he had done anything wrong. I called for his resignation because the special election was illegal. Cyc's and ravensfire's resignation at the start of this mess would have avoided the judicial review under question and would have allowed our respected president to appoint a chief justice and associate justice. He would have undoubtedly chosen between Cyc, ravensfire and Peri for the two positions. We will never know who would have been chosen but whoever it would have been would have unquestionably held their positions legally.
I have come to think that my early calls for Cyc's resignation have been construed as meaning I lacked confidence in Cyc in that position. That was not the truth and I have already apologized to Cyc in private for this matter. I now publicly offer the same apology.
Once the majority opinion in the judicial review was released I did not agree entirely with it but accepted it. It gave Cyc some semblence of legality to hold the CJ position. It is somewhat tarnished by the conflict of interest but we move on.
I do not agree with the subsequent overturning of the judicial review and support ravensfire in his request to have that reviewed.
I also do not believe that the Chief Justice's unilateral exclusion of an associate justice fromjudiciary business is legal.
I urge our moderators to let this all be settled via our established demogame rules, no matter how long it takes.
My original call for Cyc to resign was no different than Bill_in_PDX's call to have Peri's position on the judiciary justified by an official appointment. I did not call for Cyc's resignation because I thought he was unfit for the office nor because I felt he had done anything wrong. I called for his resignation because the special election was illegal. Cyc's and ravensfire's resignation at the start of this mess would have avoided the judicial review under question and would have allowed our respected president to appoint a chief justice and associate justice. He would have undoubtedly chosen between Cyc, ravensfire and Peri for the two positions. We will never know who would have been chosen but whoever it would have been would have unquestionably held their positions legally.
I have come to think that my early calls for Cyc's resignation have been construed as meaning I lacked confidence in Cyc in that position. That was not the truth and I have already apologized to Cyc in private for this matter. I now publicly offer the same apology.
Once the majority opinion in the judicial review was released I did not agree entirely with it but accepted it. It gave Cyc some semblence of legality to hold the CJ position. It is somewhat tarnished by the conflict of interest but we move on.
I do not agree with the subsequent overturning of the judicial review and support ravensfire in his request to have that reviewed.
I also do not believe that the Chief Justice's unilateral exclusion of an associate justice fromjudiciary business is legal.
I urge our moderators to let this all be settled via our established demogame rules, no matter how long it takes.
Peri
Vote early and vote often
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 3,261
From the Associate Justice.
It is not my custom to post publicy in order to resolve national crises but it appears that I have little alternative. Since Eyrei posted his deadline there have been many subsequent posts by interested parties. However there is not one sign of compromise in any of them. Eyrei WILL step in if we do not reslove this ourselves.
We may not have done everything as we should. We may have said more than was necessary. We may even have made the situation worse with our continual postings. I call upon all those with an interest in the current proceedings to agree to an amnesty for each other.
To clarify I require that we agree to accept the situation as it is and to post no further comment. I also insist that none of what is happened is used as evidence of anything or used as a precedent for any future judicial activity. We are starting again with a clean slate and with no reciminations. All that has gone before is past and will not be mentioned again.
I sincerely hope that the people of Fanatica and in particular all those who have posted in this thread can agree to this compromise.
Please post your agreement so the mods know that they do not have to impose their own and unwanted solution.
Edit.
Just as a hint to those who have yet to realise. Being right isn't what matters anymore.
It is not my custom to post publicy in order to resolve national crises but it appears that I have little alternative. Since Eyrei posted his deadline there have been many subsequent posts by interested parties. However there is not one sign of compromise in any of them. Eyrei WILL step in if we do not reslove this ourselves.
We may not have done everything as we should. We may have said more than was necessary. We may even have made the situation worse with our continual postings. I call upon all those with an interest in the current proceedings to agree to an amnesty for each other.
To clarify I require that we agree to accept the situation as it is and to post no further comment. I also insist that none of what is happened is used as evidence of anything or used as a precedent for any future judicial activity. We are starting again with a clean slate and with no reciminations. All that has gone before is past and will not be mentioned again.
I sincerely hope that the people of Fanatica and in particular all those who have posted in this thread can agree to this compromise.
Please post your agreement so the mods know that they do not have to impose their own and unwanted solution.
Edit.
Just as a hint to those who have yet to realise. Being right isn't what matters anymore.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I find it difficult to agree to the status quo when I'm not even sure what that is!
If agreeing to the compromise means:
1) the judiciary will not establish the legality or illegality of the Special Election under demogame laws in effect at the time;
and
2) we have to accept unchallenged the Chief Justice's exclusion of an Associate Justice from a judicial review;
then I cannot agree to the compromise.
I am willing to accept whatever judicial rulings are made so long as they are made in accordance with our established laws.
I have warned before that this disagreement and personal attacking was not tolerated in this thread. To no avail.
I have used my presidential vote to co-appoint a new AJ when one AJ resigned. To no avail.
See what this has lead to ? An official Moderator warning. I agree with Peri.
Presidential demand: Use this thread for what is to be used for and end all other nonsense. From now on there will be no more "I am right", "I am hurt", "I don't like XXX" or "I don't like XXX's POV". It's finished, it's over it's done.
The CJ, Cyc and the 2 AJ's, Bootstoots and Peri, are the ones who resolve judiciary issues here posted by citizens. Nothing else is to be posted here from now on. If you see a need to question the legality of the judiciary, it's members or it's rulings you find another way or thread to do this; but not here.
And to the CJ and the 2 AJ's I say this: I expect (and demand) from you to only respond to judiciary matters. Period. No debates or anything else. Period.
In RL the president has sufficient powers to take action. In DG4 my only power is to resign and leave. Please don't make me do that.
Yours truly,
Rik Meleet,
Still President of DG4.
I have used my presidential vote to co-appoint a new AJ when one AJ resigned. To no avail.
See what this has lead to ? An official Moderator warning. I agree with Peri.
Presidential demand: Use this thread for what is to be used for and end all other nonsense. From now on there will be no more "I am right", "I am hurt", "I don't like XXX" or "I don't like XXX's POV". It's finished, it's over it's done.
The CJ, Cyc and the 2 AJ's, Bootstoots and Peri, are the ones who resolve judiciary issues here posted by citizens. Nothing else is to be posted here from now on. If you see a need to question the legality of the judiciary, it's members or it's rulings you find another way or thread to do this; but not here.
And to the CJ and the 2 AJ's I say this: I expect (and demand) from you to only respond to judiciary matters. Period. No debates or anything else. Period.
In RL the president has sufficient powers to take action. In DG4 my only power is to resign and leave. Please don't make me do that.
Yours truly,
Rik Meleet,
Still President of DG4.
Moderator Action: This is not a discussion thread. If you wish to present your case to the judiciary beyond the one post where you request a review, do it privately or in a thread devoted to that subject. All who have posted in the previous 'discussion' should consider themselves warned, and a ban will result if you do not comply.
Eyrei
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Eyrei
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I have posed question #1 directly to the moderators via PM. If they answer in a way that indicates that they are imposing a moderator level rule on this, then please withdraw Question #1 below.
I would like to follow Peri's approach to these matters, and I am honestly trying to support them here. These questions though will come back to bite us on other issues in the future, so I feel they should be brought up here and now. I formally call for the following Judicial Reviews. Sorry Cyc.
In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:
1) Question asked: Are the Government Threads available for discussion and posts by normal citizens?
Specific law involved: Code of Laws, Article A, Section 3. Right to Free Speech. Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever appropriate.
It would seem the key word is "appropriate". However, what is missing is any further definition in the code of laws to override or modify this basic game right, which is also guarenteed in the Constitution of our nation. "Appropriate" could well be defined as being on topic and adhering to civfanatics rules. I find no Standard posted, polled, or otherwise, that is approved by the people, which would compromise this right in regards to the game itself.
In fact if a Standard is claimed (and who knows, maybe I missed it), please clarify the laws of our nation regarding the three books and their relationship to each other. Barring a comment in CoL.A.3 indicating that a Standard will be used to clarify it, there is no Standard that can override a Law, or the Constitution for that matter. See Constitution, Article B. (directly on point) and L. (which relates to why I asked the moderators via PM about this).
Now you may think that I am trying to slam a moderator, or generally stomp my feet here. Actually quite the opposite. I should have shut the heck up myself after one post on that other topic. I think the law should be that the government threads are controlled, and they had been in the past. However, I find no such support here in our new laws, and I feel we need a judicial confirmation or we need to write an addendum to the CoL.
In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:
2) Question asked: Is the Judiciary subserviant to the Executive Branch, specifically the President?
Related Laws: Constitution, Article C, D, and F. Code of Laws, Article B, Section 1 (responsibility and authority of the President). Code of Laws, Article D, all sections (respnsibilities and authorities of the Judicial Branch)
Clarification: Twice in this discussion/government (definition to be determined above) thread our President has implied that he can dictate what is, and is not appropriate actions by the Judicary, and what commentary is allowed, in their own thread. The most recent being a "Presidential Demand" that intended to dictate to citizen and Judiciary member alike what is, and is not appropriate.
It is my understanding that in our three branch government system the Executive Branch can make no such demands on another Branch of government. Further, the Constitution mandates that our government follow the will of the people, and as such the President cannot be allowed to attempt to stifle that discussion, or direct in ways that he or she sees fit.
I add at the end that I asking for this as a matter of law and proceedure with an eye on the future, when someone not as benevolent as Rik may hold the position. This is not an indictment of our President and his attempts to get the game on track, which I fully support.
Thank you in advance to our esteemed Judical members for their time and consideration of these questions.
I would like to follow Peri's approach to these matters, and I am honestly trying to support them here. These questions though will come back to bite us on other issues in the future, so I feel they should be brought up here and now. I formally call for the following Judicial Reviews. Sorry Cyc.
In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:
1) Question asked: Are the Government Threads available for discussion and posts by normal citizens?
Specific law involved: Code of Laws, Article A, Section 3. Right to Free Speech. Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever appropriate.
It would seem the key word is "appropriate". However, what is missing is any further definition in the code of laws to override or modify this basic game right, which is also guarenteed in the Constitution of our nation. "Appropriate" could well be defined as being on topic and adhering to civfanatics rules. I find no Standard posted, polled, or otherwise, that is approved by the people, which would compromise this right in regards to the game itself.
In fact if a Standard is claimed (and who knows, maybe I missed it), please clarify the laws of our nation regarding the three books and their relationship to each other. Barring a comment in CoL.A.3 indicating that a Standard will be used to clarify it, there is no Standard that can override a Law, or the Constitution for that matter. See Constitution, Article B. (directly on point) and L. (which relates to why I asked the moderators via PM about this).
Now you may think that I am trying to slam a moderator, or generally stomp my feet here. Actually quite the opposite. I should have shut the heck up myself after one post on that other topic. I think the law should be that the government threads are controlled, and they had been in the past. However, I find no such support here in our new laws, and I feel we need a judicial confirmation or we need to write an addendum to the CoL.
In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:
2) Question asked: Is the Judiciary subserviant to the Executive Branch, specifically the President?
Related Laws: Constitution, Article C, D, and F. Code of Laws, Article B, Section 1 (responsibility and authority of the President). Code of Laws, Article D, all sections (respnsibilities and authorities of the Judicial Branch)
Clarification: Twice in this discussion/government (definition to be determined above) thread our President has implied that he can dictate what is, and is not appropriate actions by the Judicary, and what commentary is allowed, in their own thread. The most recent being a "Presidential Demand" that intended to dictate to citizen and Judiciary member alike what is, and is not appropriate.
It is my understanding that in our three branch government system the Executive Branch can make no such demands on another Branch of government. Further, the Constitution mandates that our government follow the will of the people, and as such the President cannot be allowed to attempt to stifle that discussion, or direct in ways that he or she sees fit.
I add at the end that I asking for this as a matter of law and proceedure with an eye on the future, when someone not as benevolent as Rik may hold the position. This is not an indictment of our President and his attempts to get the game on track, which I fully support.
Thank you in advance to our esteemed Judical members for their time and consideration of these questions.
