We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party of Solentia
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 3081
Description[?]:
| The Supreme Court of Solentia, having received a Motion to Hear entitled SCC-3073-001 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=311466) and having voted 4 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 vacant, of hearing this case, and having required 3 in favor of hearing, shall now proceed to trial. SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon The PLAINTIFF: The Government of the Federal Republic of Solentia vs. The DEFENDENTS: Lysander Seymour, Unionist Party and Jack Swindon, Whig Party (tried in absentia) The PLAINTIFF claims that the recent actions of The DEFENDENTS, Lysander Seymour and Jack Swindon, in the creation and furtherance of a "Protectorate" government based in Calydon, Nukeya, are unconstitutional, and the actions of the Government of the Federal Republic in response to this "Protectorate" were warranted. Chief Justice Jack Seville shall begin the proceedings of this case, and the members of the Court and observers are reminded that pursuant to Section IV, Article 5, Subsection B of the Supreme Court of Solentia Act of 2943, no person is permitted to speak in the trial unless specifically permitted to do so by the Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice Seville, presiding. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:54:04, February 12, 2011 CET | From |  Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | As this court is now in session and this court far behind schedule, I would like to proceed with our agenda. In the first order of business I would ask that Minister of Justice, effectively the Federal Republic's attorney, deliver its case against the defense, Mr. Seymour and Mr. Swindon. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 00:35:21, February 13, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Thank you Your Honor. On behalf of the Federal Republic of Solentia, I deliver the following case against Lysander Seymour and Jack Swindon: The Federal Government of Solentia finds that Mr. Seymour and Mr. Swindon are effectively guilty of violating the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Solentia. According to the Article 1, Section 1 of the Consitution, "The Federal Republic of Solentia is a Sovereign and Democratic Nation and the Sovereign Power belongs to the people of the Federal Republic of Solentia. Sovereign Power shall be exercised in the manner provided for in this Constitution." This is effectively endorsed and cemented by Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution which states "This Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land." Furthermore, this is supported by Article 1, Section 2a by stating "The Federal Republic of Solentia shall be structured as a parliamentary democracy with a unicameral legislature and an elected Head of State." Additionally, I would also like to point to Article 9, Section 1 of the Constitution which states "Political parties shall ensure that the will of the people prevails and, for this purpose, shall represent their voters in the Senate." In stating this, the prosecution argues that because of the Federal Republican structure of government prevails as the only viable, ultimately sovereign entity in this case. The Constitution points repeatedly towards the Federal Government holding popular sovereignty over all other entities including state, local, third party, or private. This validates the action taken by the Federal Government, more specifically the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. These Federal level cabinet offices took the executive authority granted to them by the Constitution to enforce national law and ensure the unity of the Federal Republic was preserved. Without their action, the nation may have faced a potential fracturing and even possibly the opportunity to spill into civil war. The Constitution explicitly states that power shall be held and exercised by parties through sovereign, democratically elected venues. These are the Senate and the Presidency. The so-called "Protectorate" was neither elected democratically nor was it given sovereign status as an entity. Yet it claimed to have powers granted to an executive of its own and a valid structure of governance. This is clearly in conflict with the Constitution and the Constitution does not permit competition of such a nature. Also integral is the fact that this country is governed solely by popular will, through the election of the Senate. This was not the case of the Protectorate, an entity only open to a select few. The Protectorate claimed sovereignty and power, yet it held no elections nor did it allow competition within it. Justices of the Supreme Court, we as the prosecution do not find it feasible nor sensible to have two nations competing against one another. This was effectively what took place in the nation with the existence of the Protectorate. The Protectorate issued its own rules, leadership, and competed with the Federal Republic in issues it digressed with the Federal Government's rulings. This is akin to a state such as Orame establishing its state government as independent from the nation yet still part of it. When those who ran the Protectorate, such as Mr. Seymour and Mr. Swindon, were given power in Halion, they ruled with it. But when they fell from popular mandate, they retreated to the Protectorate and claimed its power to be of equal status. This hypocrisy is unparalleled. The ability of the Protectorate to exist unchallenged for as many years as it did provided a serious dent in the ability of the Federal Republic to run itself. If the Federal Republic is suspended in its right to prosecute those who threaten its ability to exist, it shall surely crumble. The Constitution firmly states the Federal Government's right to pursue those who seek its explicit downfall as well as the right to protect its sovereignty. This case must stand as an example to the nation's laws and legal system that grants the Federal Government the right to exercise its powers as necessary. The Cabinet is a system empowered by the public through a democratic election of the Presidency and is an arm of the mandate the head of state receives. Future occurrences of this nature must allow the Cabinet to act quickly and efficiently to address the matter at hand. In conclusion, the Federal Republic of Solentia and its Federal Government find its actions to be completely warranted. The prosecution is confident that without the action taken, there very well may be two Solentias right now. Thank you Your Honor. I conclude my statement. Minister of Justice Barry Cosgrove |
| Date | 00:36:34, February 13, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Thank you Minister Cosgrove for your statement. I would now ask the defense to make its case. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 16:13:42, February 15, 2011 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "Your Honour, Firstly, allow me to take slight issue with the prosecution's stance on the case of Mr. Seymour. We seem to be talking about the legalities of protectorate government here; that is not what we are here to defend. Lysander Seymour had no part in the creation of the Protectorate. The Protectorate was a demcoratically-created body that was invented and promoted long before Mr. Seymour took the reigns of the Unionist Party. He himself was not even part of the Unionist team when Horace Callermansted became the first Lord Protector. Instead, let us concentrate on the role that Mr. Seymour actually played. Firstly, upon his elevation to the role of Unionist Chancellor, Mr. Seymour made a very clear and obvious choice not to use the title Lord Prtoector due to it's illegal status. Mr. Seymour was here, issuing respect for the laws of the land, the sovereignty of the Solentian Government. He followed Solentian law to the letter and made no attempt to refer to, or even to go to Calydon to accept, the title Lord Protector. Instead, Mr. Seymour sought unity. He preached single governance, questioning the legality of a duel-state system. He worked hard to promote a double-title for the Head of Government in order to bring peace. Mr. Seymour was an advocate through and through of One Solentia, one state and respect for Solentian law. Upon the escalation of the political differences between the Heritage Coalition traditionalists and the Whig faction, Mr. Seymour chose to travel to Calydon with his team to discuss the matter further. He did not collaborate with Whigs, he did not use the title Lord Protector, he did not even mention duel governance. The ONLY references to duel governance being restored were from Peter Jier, the Chairman of the 2616 Committee, and the Federal Government itself. Mr. Seymour then, after a jittery and reactionary Internal Affairs Ministry demanded entry to Kennedy House, obayed the law and handed himself in. His team travelled back to Halinon to continue pushing for single governance. Your Honour, the Protectorate Government was democratically elected in the first instance. It was then the decision of those who were elected to uphold it's legality in the face of traditionalist uprising and restoration of the old system. Mr. Seymour did neither. He was neither elected into the first Regency, nor did he uphold the regency as the true government afterwards. He has proven this by consistantly and deliberately obeying the demands of the authorities, respecting Solentian law, recognising the legality of the Federal Government, rejecting the Lord Protector title as illegal and appearing before this court despite his own belief that the Protectorate was warrented despite constitutional questions. Lysander Seymour has been a model Solentian citizen Your Honour, and stands as an example to all political opponants of the Government or it's strucutre that debate and discussion can be had, without violating the law. I conclude, thank you Your Honour." Dr. Caroline Keller, Defence. |
| Date | 22:26:08, February 15, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Thank you Dr. Keller for your statement. I would now ask that Minister of Internal Affairs, Sheila Harrison, address the Court. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 22:26:59, February 15, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "Thank you Your Honor, The Ministry of Internal Affairs, having been addressed by the defense counsel as 'jittery and reactionary,' wishes to clarify and justify to the court the need for its firm actions in the resolution of the Protectorate Crisis. My ministry was ordered in December, 3071 by President Bayless to take 'any necessary action required to protect the sovereignty of the Federal Republic.' President Bayless was pushed to issue this order by the actions of the Whig and Unionist party leadership, who had left Halion enmasse and sought to assemble in Calydon, the center of the previous Protectorate government. In order to preempt any attempt at setting up a dual government based in Calydon, my ministry saw fit to dispatch Solentian Federal Police Bureau forces to the city in order to prevent the meeting of illegal shadow government entities. This ban on Protectorate meetings in Calydon was a 'necessary action' to protect the sovereignty of the Federal Republic in the eyes of my ministry. At the time, my ministry made clear that the police were 'not a military force, [but] a force dedicated to the protection and proper exercise of Solentian government.' By May, 3072, Whig and Unionist party leadership had not abandoned attempts to caucus in Calydon despite the SFPB influx in the city. Aware that several private Whig and Unionist strongholds remained beyond the eyes of the legitimate government, my ministry cooperated with the Ministry of Justice in order to receive warrants for the arrest of Jack Swindon and Lysander Seymour, the leaders of the Regency movement and the Unionist party, respectively. My ministry and most of Solentia had known for some time that Mr. Seymour was within the walls of the Kennedy House. The whereabouts of Mr. Swindon were unknown, but several high ranking members of Whig leadership were presumed to be at Kennedy House. We now know that he had fled to Istaliana early into the Protectorate Crisis and was in contact with the Kennedy House via video conferencing, etc. Nevertheless, the known presence of Seymour and assumed presence of Swindon at Kennedy House was grounds for SFPB officers to demand entry to the grounds of the private Unionist estate. Jack Swindon was always the first priority of my ministry, as the Whig Party was most involved in the militarization and escalation of the Protectorate Crisis, and Mr. Swindon clung to aristocratic titles which were abolished when the Presidency of the Federal Republic was restored. Jack Swindon blatantly led a pro-dual government policy from his hidden location, which my ministry, the Ministry of Justice, and President Bayless assert is an illegal violation of the Constitutional authority of the Senate and the President. Following the arrest of Mr. Seymour, the Crisis was quickly deflated. Seymour was cooperative with my ministry during arrest and by all accounts from Minister Cosgrove he was cooperative and helpful during investigation. The Whig Party, seeing that its tenuous ally in the Unionist Party was not committed to the Protectorate government in Calydon, quickly fled to Istaliana where intelligence indicates that similar attempts at the installation of regency have gone well for the progeny of the Whig Party. Swindon's escape from Solentian police is troubling but not a topic for discussion here. Seymour's cooperation has been recognized in his release to house arrest, and ought to be considered by this court. In conclusion, the actions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were not, in my opinion, 'jittery and reactionary.' The SFPB officers acted admirably in avoiding violence even in the face of paramilitary forces, the increased forces in Calydon have been removed peacefully without incident after the diffusion of the crisis, and it is my humble opinion that without the prompt and firm actions taken by the Bayless administration in response to the dual government crisis, there could, as Minister Cosgrove stated, very well be two belligerent Solentias today. My ministry acted within its constitutional and Presidential mandate: we took all necessary actions to bring the crisis to a prompt end and do not apologize for any action taken. Thank you Your Honor, I conclude my statement.” Minister of Internal Affairs Sheila Harrison |
| Date | 22:56:29, February 15, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Thank you Minister Harrison for your statement. I would now ask my fellow Justices of the Supreme Court to speak if they have any questions. This process will be executed via order of seniority. The first Justice to Speak will be Associate Justice Hannah Williams. Until Justice Williams speaks, no one else is allowed to do so in this Court. Justice Williams, you may proceed. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 23:03:18, February 15, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "Thank you Chief Justice Seville, I wish to address the defense with a question: Dr. Keller, bearing in mind Minister Harrison's remarks about the almost immediate diffusion of the Protectorate Crisis following the arrest of Mr. Seymour, in the opinion of the defence, what would have occurred in the Protectorate Crisis IF the Bayless Administration had not acted as it did? If Federal police officers were not dispatched to Calydon and if arrest warrants for Mr. Swindon and Mr. Seymour, what would have been the outcome of the Crisis?" Associate Justice Hannah Williams |
| Date | 23:57:44, February 16, 2011 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "I am afraid, Your Honour, I am no clairvoyant. Nor is it my job to speculate on 'what-ifs'. The facts are plain and simple. Mr. Seymour acted in a manner both befiting of a man of his office and a model Solentian citizen. There is no way to tell what would have happened had the Internal Affairs Ministry decided against arresting the cooperative and innocent Mr. Seymour." Dr. Caroline Keller, Defence. |
| Date | 01:23:08, February 17, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "Very well. Thank you Dr. Keller. I have no further questions." Associate Justice Hannah E. Williams |
| Date | 04:07:01, February 19, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | In accordance with procedure, Associate Justice Stanley Kirzner may now pose any questions he has for this court. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 04:08:24, February 19, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "Thank you Chief Justice Seville, I have no questions to pose." Associate Justice Stanley Kirzner |
| Date | 04:57:38, February 19, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Very well Justice Kirzner, we shall move on by allowing Associate Justice Henrik York to pose any questions necessary. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 17:00:52, February 19, 2011 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "Thank you Chief Justice however I too have no questions to pose." Associate Justice Henrik York |
| Date | 18:46:10, February 19, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Very well Justice York, the order of speaking now turns to Associate Justice Allen Green. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 18:47:47, February 19, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Thank you Chief Justice Seville, however I have heard what I believe to be necessary to allow the Court to make its judgement. Therefore, I have no questions to be fielded. Associate Justice Allen Green |
| Date | 22:01:44, February 20, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | Very well Justice Green. This Court has deliberated for long enough, it is now time to conclude this case. The Justices of the Supreme Court shall publish their opinions of the case. The question at hand is whether the Federal Government of the Federal Republic exercised authority granted to it by the Constitution and whether the Protectorate was an illegal entity. Justices may either write an opinion of their own that concurs with the opinion of the Chief Justice, join the opinion that follows, or author a dissenting opinion. After all Justices have either joined, concurred, or dissented, the Court will tally the opinions and the case will be finalized. (Opinion authored by Chief Justice Jack Seville) It is the opinion of this Court that the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Solentia had acted in compliance with the wishes and mandates of the Constitution. It is in this Court's opinion that the actions undertaken by the Federal Government and its accomplices were motivated by a desire to uphold the sovereignty and security of the Federal Republic. Furthermore, the rationale provided by the Prosecution in this case has decidedly landed on a firm bedrock of Constitutional authority, evidenced by the explicit wording of Solentia's highest law of the land. The opinion of the Court finds the following: 1) The Federal Government undertook action required to protect national sovereignty and security. 2) The Federal Government explored its boundaries of power within reason and acted appropriately to the situation at hand, following the laws of the land while not pursuing authoritarianism in a scenario in which there were no guidelines to follow. 3) The Supreme President acted appropriately as the nation's empowered chief executive. 4) The Cabinet Officers of the Bayless Administration acted appropriately as the nation's empowered arm of the executive branch. 5) The concept of the "Protectorate" is found to be unlawful, un-constitutional, and treasonous due its separate nature. 6) Lysander Seymour, an influential party in the Defense, is not guilty of treason as he did not accept the privileges or powers of the Protectorate. 7) Jack Swindon, an influential party in the Defense, is guilty of treason for mobilizing militia, accepting and expanding the privileges and powers of the Protectorate, and defying Solentian authorities by fleeing the country. 8) The case of the Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon establishes the right of the Federal Government to act in the nation's best interest, exercise its mandated authority, adhere to separation of powers, and to maintain national sovereignty over both foreign and domestic threats. The Defense has failed to convince the Court that had the Federal Government pursued a passive approach to the situation, the nation's sovereignty would not be desecrated. It also has failed to rationalize sufficiently the legality of the Protectorate. However, it has convinced this Court that Mr. Seymour is not guilty in this case and this Court instructs Mr. Seymour to be released and dropped of all charges and accusations. It realizes that Mr. Seymour worked with dignity to assist the Prosecution in its case to ensure all sides were cognizant of the situation at hand. The Court also questions what the Federal Republic of Solentia would look like without the action undertaken by the Bayless Administration and Ministry of Internal Affairs. This concludes the presented opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 22:03:49, February 20, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | I agree with Chief Justice Seville in the aforementioned opinion finding that the Federal Government undertook action required to protect national sovereignty and security. I join the Seville Opinion. Associate Justice Allen Green |
| Date | 22:17:14, February 20, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "I concur with the Seville Opinion with one reservation: Broadly declaring the mobilization of militia treasonous is a dangerous precedent. There is no law or constitutional article declaring the mobilization of militia illegal, and for the court to legislate from the bench is not the intended purpose of the Solentian judiciary. While the Protectorate government was clearly in violation of the Constitution, the Whig Party had the right to oppose the Halion government militarily if they felt it necessary, as has happened in the face of tyranny in the past. There is an important place for a militia of the citizenry, and while there was no tyrannical breach of rights in this particular case, it is important to allow for the people of Solentia to defend themselves even from their government, if their rights are infringed upon. In summary, Jack Swindon is guilty of treason and the findings of the Seville Opinion are supported, aside from the fact that mobilization of militia is not a treasonous offense, but is in fact one of the most important tools for the protection of the Federal Republican system of government." Associate Justice Hannah E. Williams "I join with the Williams Opinion and concur with the Seville Opinion." Associate Justice Stanley Kirzner |
| Date | 19:29:26, February 21, 2011 CET | From | Green Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "I join with the Williams opinion and concur with the Seville Opinion." Associate Justice Henrik York |
| Date | 23:19:09, February 21, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | The Clerk of Court, Julio Chavez, shall address the Supreme Court at this time. Mr. Chavez, you now have this Court's attention. Chief Justice Jack Seville |
| Date | 23:19:48, February 21, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | The Court has decided then. At the end of voting, the Court has upheld the Plaintiff's case and the right of the Federal Government to act in the nation's best interest, exercise its mandated authority, adhere to separation of powers, and to maintain national sovereignty over both foreign and domestic threats. The Justices of the Supreme Court have voted 5 - 0 in support of the aforementioned rationale, with the Majority Opinion authored by Chief Justice Jack Seville receiving one join and three concurs via the Williams Concurring Opinion. The case of Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon is officially concluded. Clerk of the Court Julio Chavez |
| Date | 23:23:39, February 21, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | "With a tally of 2 joining and 4 concurring, and requiring 4/7 concurring or joining to be declared the opinion of the court, the Seville Opinion has become the majority opinion of the court in this case. The Williams Opinion is noted as having 3 joining. The case of Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon is hereby closed and final." Clerk of the Court Julio Chavez |
| Date | 23:24:03, February 21, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | OOC: Woopsie ;) FIP's Clerk statement is the right one. My bad :) |
| Date | 23:24:50, February 21, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the SUPREME COURT: SCC-3073-001 Federal Republic of Solentia vs. Seymour and Swindon |
| Message | OOC: And I even counted wrong. Good thing one of us was right ;) Well done everyone. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 249 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 142 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." - Leon Trotsky |