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: Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK)
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: November 4681
Description[?]:
| MOVED TO VOTE FOR ARCHIVE PURPOSES Plaintiff: Georgia Van Wyck Defendant: Premier of the Republic Haytham Kennedy, for the Government of The United Republic of Kalistan The Speaker of the Socialist Party of Kalistan, Plaintiff Georgia Van Wyck filed a suit in the Kalistani Constitutional Court against the Government of the United Republic of Kalistan, represented by Premier of the Republic Haytham Kennedy. Premier Kennedy is not personally named in the Lawsuit but has been titled Defendant by the Plaintiff as the Premier is the Head of the Government of the United Republic of Kalistan. The lawsuit references specifically the early election of December 4519 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=592383) a mere 7 months after a regularly scheduled election which the Candidate from the National Conservative Party, Former President of the Republic and now Governor of the District of Nevaras Narelle Ewart. This Plaintiff asks the court to make a ruling on the following question: "Should the legitimacy of the President of the Republic, who is Head of STATE and is elected directly by the population at-large, be in any way dependent upon the votes of the members of the Assembly, who are elected singly, by their respective constituencies, and who subsequently elect, the Head of GOVERNMENT of Kalistan, thereby providing legitimacy to the Premier of the Republic?" The Facts of the case, as alleged, are: 1) Narelle Ewart, candidate for the Presidency from the National Conservative Party, who was endorsed by the Socialist Party of Kalistan and the United Kalistani Workers Front won the May 4519 Regular Election on the Second Ballot due to a split in votes among Ewart's opposition. She was elected fairly and legitimately, and became President of the Republic. 2) Upon attempting to form a government, various Parties made demands upon the President as a condition for their participation. The Demands made are unimportant to the case: the fact is that several Parties informed the President that they wanted their demands met or they would not participate. 3) At some point within three Months, the Liberal Democratic Party withdrew their ministers from the Government, leaving several seats vacant. 4) Upon withdrawal, the Government was deemed "illegitimate" by fiat of the Speaker of the Patriotic League, who was at that time, only the head of the Plurality, but not the Majority, and a "vote of no confidence" was brought to the Floor of the Assembly. 5) The bill passed with a majority in the Assembly in late November 4519, and a new election was held, in which President Ewart was stripped of her office and President Michael Blake from the Patriotic League was elected with the endorsement of the LDP. We call for relief because while the Prerogative (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=590793) gives the President the SOLE responsibility to name the Government of Kalistan, it does not have contingency for a situation where the President is unable or unwilling to form a new Government. In this case, the President was unable to form a government which conformed to Principles of Separation of Power which have long held in the Republic as the Standard for forming the Government, namely that the Government be formed of Parties which represent a majority of the Assembly. The President's failure to form a Government was due to the unwillingness of the PL and the LDP to serve in any Government proposed by the President except the one that they proposed. However: The Plaintiff alleges that just because the President is unable to form a government, this does not make the President illegitimate or invalidate the election, thus necessitating a new one. The Plaintiff claims that the Vote of No Confidence of November 4519 was illegal because Votes of No Confidence are cast against the Head of Government, NOT the Head of State. The Plaintiff asserts that the President's Office is NOT subject to approval by the Assembly of Kalistan, but to the voters of the Republic. Therefore, the Assembly invalidating the election of the Presidency was a violation of the Rights of the voters who had cast votes in the May 4519 elections. The Plaintiff asserts standing in this issue. She feels that her rights to endorse candidates of her choice and have her voice reflected in the election of the Head of State of Kalistan, according to the provisions set up for election of President of the Republic under the Constitution of the United Republic of Kalistan have been violated by the actions of the PL and their LDP supporters. The Remedy sought is to either 1) Create an RP Law invalidating any early election bills that happen while we have 90%+ of the seats in the Assembly filled, and/or 2) Alter the Prerogative so that failure to form a Government by a duly elected President shall NEVER be grounds for an early election, and/or 3) to make it explicit that a Vote of No Confidence shall only be directed against the Government and the Premier, and NEVER the President, so that any vote of No Confidence cannot NEVER accompany an early election bill, but shall force the Entity responsible for naming the Government to create a new government bill which excludes the current Premier should the vote go against them, and/or 4) Reform the Prerogative so that the Plurality Party shall name the Government, guaranteeing the Presidential Party the Foreign Affairs Seat, and/or 5) Reform the Prerogative so that ANY Party may create a Government Bill, but either the Presidential Party or the Plurality (to be determined in an RP Bill) shall be guaranteed First Attempt at the effort, and if this fails, any Party may propose a new Government Configuration, that maintains the Principles of Divided government set down in the Prerogative. The Plaintiff also seeks to make the ruling of this court be precedential, and hold for all similar cases in the future, as well as govern the actions of the Assembly until this case is overturned by future courts. The Plaintiff welcomes all amicus briefs in support of any of these motions. We thank the Court for their attention to this issue, and would like to move along as diligently as possible. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:35:26, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice of the court Leon Steele calls this meeting of the 43rd Constiutional Court,Van Wyck V. Kennedy into session. |
| Date | 11:27:43, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Your honor, Our defence is simple,the Current ruling government at that time did not have a majority in any way shape or form,and it was obvious that the President was not going to even attempt to form a government which had a majority,for the sake of national interest we supported the proposal of the PL to begin early elections as did the majority in the country. |
| Date | 13:26:32, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Premier Kennedy, It is required that a candidate receive a majority popular vote in order to win the election, something which Narelle Ewart had received, 51.12% to 48.69%. How is it that you can claim that the President had not received a majority vote when she so clearly did? I'd also like to ask, do you have any evidence to back up your allegations that President Ewart made no plans to form permanent cabinet? Justice Richard Hitchens |
| Date | 13:35:33, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | OOC: just for clarity, because we have justices and lawyers, if we could identify who is speaking, that would help keep the RP clear. If: Donna Yeager, lead attorney for Van Wyck: With respect to the statement from the honorable barrister for the Defense, we would counter by saying that forming a new government is not and never has been a REQUIREMENT for serving as President. Secondly, it is not true that Comrade Ewart never had a majority: she earned a majority on the second ballot of the May 4519 election and would not have become President if she had not. The President’s majority is not and never has been counted by how many seats her coalition controls in the Assembly. Her majority is counted among the people, arguably a more final say on who should represent them, and certainly, by the rules THE method of selecting Head of State that we employ in this Republic. Finally, we assert that the sitting government at the time did not support the early election: the only ones who voted for it were not in government at the time. So this bill overruled the legitimate election of Comrade Ewart by those who were at the time in the disgruntled opposition. We yield but reserve speaking rights. |
| Date | 15:01:59, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat, lead attorney for Premier Haytham Kennedy The plaintiff has clearly not listened to our defence,so lets re-itirate in simpler terms: We did not mean the President didnt have a majority,We meant that THE COALİTİON did not have a majority,as a result a new government was necessary to be formed. The President did not manage to form a coalition and then to calls from our party to attempt a different coalition,She simply replied by putting Interim Ministers in place and claiming the previous minority government shall continue. Also we did not push to remove the President just because.She did not form a government,but because it was the only clear path to relieve the crisis that was at hand at the time. |
| Date | 15:13:56, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar, for the Plaintiff: With respect your honor: we concede that the presidential coalition did not possess the majority of the Assembly; in fact, that point was never in contention if the Justices will read the complaint. Our point, and we will reiterate as well, for the benefit of the Respondant’s counsel, was that the need for a new Government did not equal the need for either a new President or a new General Election in the Assembly. Government Bills are passed as a matter of Statute. We could have easily passed a government bill with the composition of the Assembly following the May elections as we did following the December Elections, if the President had simply offered it. The President did not offer one before being ousted. However: we reassert that proposal of a government was NOT a requirement for continuing to serve as President in the Republic. It never has been. And the calling of elections that threw her out when she was legitimately elected because the sponsors of the bill could not tolerate the outcome of the previous election served only to invalidate the will of the voters in May. The ONLY problem with the May elections was that the PL ran their own candidate for office against the LDP’s chosen successor to President Furhat. The opposition was divided. So Cde. Governor Ewart won the election, with a majority of voters. The PL did not accept the outcome and used their legislative numbers to invalidate the election. These are the facts of the case. I invite the counselforbthe Premier to show me how these facts are wrong. If I am in error, I will happily amend my complaint. We yield. |
| Date | 15:54:46, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat,Lead attorney for Premier Haytham Kennedy, Correct me if im mistaken,there is no law that barrs the Assembly of calling an early election. Therefore there is no legal barrier/violation to the call for early elections,the majority of the deputies in parliament did not have confidence in the government and President’s abilities therefore as the National Assembly is above and supervisos the President,It decided that an early election was necessary. |
| Date | 15:57:25, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Furthermore the defence would like to get the attention of the court on the Prerogative:, Article 3) The Parties forming the Government must constitute a majority of the National Assembly. The former government clearly did not constitute a majority in the assembly |
| Date | 16:13:34, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Mrs./Ms. Furhat, Could you please cite the law or constitutional clause which states that is the authority of the National Assembly to supervise the President. Justice George Pipes |
| Date | 16:45:35, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar, Attorney for the plaintiff: We concede: there is no law forbidding it. Which goes to our proposed remedy. |
| Date | 16:46:51, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Ms.Sarah Furhat Miss,It’s early for Mrs. *laughs* as you can see in http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=574304 under System of Government the Law clearly states that Kalistan is a strong unitary republic.Under such system the National Assembly is the highest power in the Legislative and the Supervising power in the Executive branch |
| Date | 16:49:14, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar, Attorney for the Plaintiff: We would further stipulate that a vote of no confidence against the President is not something that exists. The vote of No Confidence means that the current legislature does not have confidence that the current government can hold its coalition together. The matter does not touch the state. Henceforth: we would like it acknowledged that a vote of no confidence has nothing to do with the head of State, as such. If the Respondants would please use precision in their language we could at least clear up the semantics we seem to disagree upon. |
| Date | 16:49:31, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | The Defense supports the fifth proposal as a remedy for future issues. As Mr.Kennedy has advocated for it before. |
| Date | 16:51:00, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Objection: that document is a work in progress, was never completed and therefore only reflects a certain political philosophy and does not have any more force of law than an amicus brief to this court. |
| Date | 16:52:17, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | OOC: which other parties are welcomed to submit. |
| Date | 16:55:17, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | OOC: which other parties are welcomed to submit. |
| Date | 16:59:18, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar, Attorney for for the Plaintiff: We believe we have demonstrated our case and have answered all concerns. We would yield to the court and the the Defense who each may or may not have questions with regard to our complaint. Until such time: the complainant rests. |
| Date | 17:03:43, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | The defense rests. |
| Date | 17:07:59, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar, Attorney for for the Plaintiff: We believe we have demonstrated our case and have answered all concerns. We would yield to the court and the the Defense who each may or may not have questions with regard to our complaint. Until such time: the complainant rests. |
| Date | 17:08:30, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sorry for the double posts. This phone does not like me. |
| Date | 17:15:12, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | (It’s all good... now do the justices vote on their ruling?) |
| Date | 17:17:08, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | (It’s all good... now do the justices vote on their ruling?) |
| Date | 17:31:56, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | (If the justices wish to question the parties, they may do so. When the Chief Justice is satisfied that nobody has questions, he will start a new bill with the same title, but “voting copy” added to it, copy and paste the text and think this discussion. When it goes to a vote, each party will say how their justices vote and cast votes like normal. The vote is decided based on how the justices vote, not on the seat count. Then the Chief Justice will come here and announce the verdict. If we find for the Plaintiff, I’ll start a new RP laws bill based on the proposed remedies, and if we find for the Respondant, the matter will be resolved with a status quo. I’ll then put this bill to a vote for archival purposes, it don’t matter if it passes, this is just the discussion copy anyway.) |
| Date | 17:32:57, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | *link this discussion, not “think this discussion” |
| Date | 17:38:21, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice Steele- I now open the floor for questions. |
| Date | 17:41:08, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice Steele- I now open the floor for questions. |
| Date | 17:42:11, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice Steele- I now open the floor for questions. |
| Date | 17:42:30, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | (Phone- why tho) |
| Date | 17:54:48, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Gallager I would like to ask the plaintiff, Mrs.Van Wyck,suppose you are majority in the National Assembly,and suppose the Presidency is won by the smallest party in parliament,now suppose that the President denies you and the second largest party their fair share in the coalition for the interest of their party. You naturally oppose and they try to circumvent the democracy and Assembly by proposing İnterim Ministers and claiming the 4 year-old government which does not have the confidence of parliament still is legitimate.Now suppose the President simply ignores your calls to re-open negotiations and goes about business as usual while failing the most important and main responsibility of the office of President. How would your party react in this instance ? |
| Date | 21:09:06, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Georgia Van Wyck, Plaintiff, Comrade Justice, with respect, your question is loaded. I do not accept the premise that any party has any more claim to a share of the cabinet than any other Party. As an institutionalization, and an ardent supporter of the Presidential Prerogative, I have advocated the President selecting someone other than myself as Premier, because I felt that a conservative Premier would be better able to carry out the agenda of a liberal President than I would have. I only accepted the premiership after that Conservative did not want it, in a later government bill. I do not think that any Party is entitled to anything via the Prerogative: the appointment is entirely up to the President under current rules, and it is incumbent upon Parties to support all bills which conform to standards set forth in the Prerogative. That some Parties were absolutely unwilling to (I will note that the current President’s Party votes either AGAINST or abstained on all Government bills except one, the one that President Blake created, and yet we do not hear anyone objecting that he ignored the prerogative) support any proposal that the President might have advance which did not accede to their parochial and self aggrandizing demands does not make that President’s election illegitimate. If the Justice’s Party were so concerned about legitimacy of the government and the use of interim ministers until a new government could be emplaned, I assert they should not have ordered their ministers to resign, but instead should have cooperated with the President to come to a solution which would have confirmed to the Prerogative. The liberals cannot have it both ways. As to how the Socialists would act: as supporters of the prerogative, I would say that if the President wanted to cut the SP clean out of government that is, well, the President’s Prerogative. So long as they are following the rules, it ain’t up to us. |
| Date | 21:17:14, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | I’m going to ignore the 3/4rds of your speech as it did not adress the question,and just go to the final statements. I did not ask what would you do if the President excluded you of the government,I asked what would you do if the President failed at his or her very job and did not form a government ? |
| Date | 21:30:38, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Gallager, If I may interject, I'd like to ask you to actually read and ponder over Mrs. Van Wyck's statement, as I believe she has given you quite an adequate response. It's simply inappropriate to be a Justice for the highest court in the land yet ignore important chunks of statements. Justice George Pipes |
| Date | 21:34:01, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice George,İ trust you did not come here to act as an attorney of the plaintiff,please let her defend herself,70% was basically a propaganda speech and only %30 of it was related to the question which i did not get a sufficient answer for. Justice Gallager. |
| Date | 21:36:17, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- I would like to remind our comrade Justice that all arguments in this court hold merit and to maintain decorum. |
| Date | 21:38:31, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Amicus Curiae Brief (Unitary Republic) This short brief was provided to the court by a political science professor from Doceus Rex university: "I've seen the term 'Unitary Republic' come up and be misused in this case, so I just wanted to clarify that a Unitary Republic is a republic in which one central government governs the entire state rather than a bunch of smaller governments like in a Federal or Confederal Republic, it has nothing to do with the legislature's duties regarding executive oversight." |
| Date | 21:39:41, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- I would like to remind our comrade Justice that all arguments in this court hold merit and to maintain decorum. |
| Date | 21:39:56, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | The “Unitary” part does not but “Republic” certainly does. |
| Date | 21:41:18, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- I would like to remind our comrade Justice that all arguments in this court hold merit and to maintain decorum. |
| Date | 21:41:25, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Galllager, To be fair, your statement was chock full of bias and propaganda, and I'm not acting as Mrs. Van Wyck's defense, I'm simply asking that you pay attention to her arguments so we can reach the correct verdict. Justice George Pipes |
| Date | 21:44:05, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice George, We are not here to argue amongst ourselves,for the interest of the court please let the plaintiff answer. |
| Date | 21:44:34, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- I would like to remind our comrade Justice that all arguments in this court hold merit and to maintain decorum. |
| Date | 21:45:19, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | (Ignore that 2nd one. Phone hates me today.) |
| Date | 22:01:50, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Gallager, I'm not arguing, I'm simply pointing out facts that you should know as a NCC Justice, such as the fact that the plaintiff had given you an answer, but one you had proudly ignored the majority of. Justice George Pipes |
| Date | 22:25:57, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Very well,the ability to have a thoughtful question and answer portion is clearly not pheasable with the situation at hand,i pull back my question,we can go to vote. |
| Date | 22:29:10, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- Comrade Justice, this is the second time I’m warning you about the maintenance of decorum. |
| Date | 22:35:06, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- Comrade Justice, this is the second time I’m warning you about the maintenance of decorum. |
| Date | 22:54:17, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Georgia Van Wyck: With respect your honor, we do not believe that naming a government is the sole responsibility of the President. In fact, naming the government is not the Responsibility of the President at all. It is the Right of the President. As I have the Right to freedom of speech and the right to expect that my vote matters and cannot be overturned by 138 Kalistani citizens( half plus 1 of the legislature who can force a new election at will) “just because they can”, this does not mean it is my job to utilize my freedom of speech. No where did anyone ever assert, any where in this proceeding, nor anywhere in law that the President is in deriliction of duty because they are unable to form a government just because a couple of petty negotiators choose to sit on their hands. Deriliction of duty WOULD be grounds for removal, but this is not a duty, but a right. Hence, the name “Prerogative.” Forgive me, I do not mean to lecture the Justice on the definition of common words. I merely assert that your loaded question asserts the legal theory advanced by the Respondant, and I simply do not accept the opening premise of your question, because it does not accurately reflect the role of the prerogative in Kalistani politics. |
| Date | 23:03:10, January 25, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Eduardo Hernandez: Comrade Chief Justice, as we do not wish to act as attorney for either side we would like to ask if there are any additional questions, and would like to remind all justices that we are not trial lawyers who are seated to play gotcha with the plaintiff and the Respondant, but should direct our questions toward clarification, so that we may make the clearest decision possible based on the merits of the case? I would also note, reading the complaint that nobody is asking for the December election to be overturned or Governor Ewart to be restored. It appears from the complaint that the Plaintiff accepts the outcomes of the second elections and seeks to alter the prerogative and establish rules regarding the use of the early election bill. |
| Date | 23:31:14, January 25, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- Very well. Do the justices have any more questions to ask before we begin our deliberations? |
| Date | 23:41:48, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice Steele One minute please, Justice Pipes and I would like to look over the case transcript one last time. Justice Richard Hitchens |
| Date | 23:52:41, January 25, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Ms. Furhat, Justice Pipes and I have one final question for the defendant: What is your response to the following quote from the plaintiff, as you've never given one "We would further stipulate that a vote of no confidence against the President is not something that exists. The vote of No Confidence means that the current legislature does not have confidence that the current government can hold its coalition together. The matter does not touch the state. Henceforth: we would like it acknowledged that a vote of no confidence has nothing to do with the head of State, as such. If the Respondants would please use precision in their language we could at least clear up the semantics we seem to disagree upon." I believe Mrs. Van Wyck has brought up a great point, though I think it would be beneficial to hear any possible arguments against this statement. Justice Richard Hitchins |
| Date | 00:00:05, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat We never claimed that the vote of no confidence was directed at the president,because we were not the ones who proposed or named that legislation in question,We simply supported it for the basis of Early Elections. The issue of can a vote of confidence or no confidence be directed at the President is one you can take up with the representatives of the Patriotic League,however for the record we do believe that should the National Assembly not trust in the ability of the President to govern they should have a right to intervene, the very idea that the President should be away from checks and balances and untouchable by the Assembly is simply ridiculous. |
| Date | 00:02:25, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | And dangerous if we might add. |
| Date | 00:22:14, January 26, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | "Dangerous is endorsing a damn PL fascist for President, you traitors!" The unnamed man who shouted this statement is dragged out of the courtroom while shouting statements such as "The Workers Will Rise Again" and "Res Publica Delenda Est", popular statements within the opposition movement. |
| Date | 00:22:25, January 26, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Ms. Furhat, I apologize for that interruption, but now that we have order in the court, I have a follow up question. In the your previous statement, you claimed that the vote of no confidence wasn't directed at the President, but how could that be if your whole reason for ousting the President was her inability to quickly form a government with the PL or LDP. If that's not the case, then why did you support the vote of no confidence? Because if the LDP didn't direct their vote towards the President, there doesn't seem to be any reason to have supported the PL's bill, well, other than to cause chaos, but that's below most parties. In response to your argument that the National Assembly should have the power to freely impeach the President whenever they don't agree with the President doesn't actually support the separation of powers, it violates them. The President should only be impeached when they have committed an impeachable offence, and being disliked by the National Assembly is barely even an offense. I'd also like to point out that the President does very little other than appoint the cabinet in terms of governing, the position is primarily as a national figurehead. Justice Richard Hitchens |
| Date | 00:30:23, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar, Attorney forbthe Plaintiff: I would remind the justices the my client never asserted that the President should be “untouchable” by the Assembly. As a matter of fact, she explicitly stated that deriliction of duty would be grounds for removal. This was meant to suggest that there would be AT LEAST one good reason to recall a President. As a point of clarity, not exercising a RIGHT contained in the Presidential prerogative SHOULD NOT HENCEFORTH be one. This is the position of my client and the Argument underlying the complaint and the remedyvsought. |
| Date | 00:37:42, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat, First of all,We find it amusing that The plaintiff and for some reason some Justice’s are acting as if there was no reason to call for early elections (which is the reason we supported the PL proposal). To repeat for the god-knows how manyeth time:SHE WAS UNABLE TO FORM A GOVERNMENT which is one of the primary jobs of her office,and no majority government results in instability and danger to national interest and to address the disruptor,TREASON is allowing the Nation to suffer for political aims. Which is exactly what the plaintiff is defendinf by somehow saying that We were wrong in calling an election just because the former President was incapable. |
| Date | 00:50:55, January 26, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Ms. Furhat, "We never claimed that the vote of no confidence was directed at the president..." This is one of your statements, is it not? Justice Richard Hitchins |
| Date | 00:52:18, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat Yes ? |
| Date | 00:54:14, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar: Your Honors, “she was unable to form a government” is certainly not a reason to remove a President no matter how loudly the histrionic-possessed barrister shouts it. There is No evidence whatsoever presented that demonstrates the veracity of the Defense’s claim. They do not simply get to assert it and have it be the law. It is NOWHERE in law that this is the JOB of the President as the attorney claims repeatedly. It is their RIGHT, their PREROGATIVE to do so. The law is clear: it is permissive, NOT OBLIGATORY. It is RIGHT IN THE TOTLE OF THE LAWnd there is nothing in the text where the President of the Republic MUST name a government or be removed from office. This Attorney has repeated herself multiple times and would ask the Justices to move on to voting so that we can refrain from hearing the broken record that the Comrade has become, unless there are any other questions to be posed by th justices. |
| Date | 00:59:50, January 26, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice Steele Justice Hitchens and i have all the information we need, we back Yeager's recommendation to move to a vote. Justice George Pipes |
| Date | 01:01:17, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat, We understand that it s her “right” but you fail to understand...well...anything really... Doesnt matter if it was her right/wish/job to form a government,the facts are the Nation was left without a majority government and We decided as is our political right to support early elections to find someone who is capable of forming a government,for the sake of the nation. This whole lawsuit is completely politically-driven and is based on the “feelings” of the plaintiff that “She deserved better”. |
| Date | 01:03:20, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Gallager The two justice’s backed from the PL have yet to have a say,therefore we cannot move to vote |
| Date | 01:14:27, January 26, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | OOC The PL was online, however refused to comment on the case, I think it's safe to say he has none. |
| Date | 01:15:48, January 26, 2019 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Ms. Furhat, I'd like to ask that you cease your insults against Ms. Yeager. This is a court, not a pub. Justice George Pipes |
| Date | 01:17:09, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Donna Yeagar: You may portray the case however you like. The interpretation of the law is in the Court's hands now. Thankfully. |
| Date | 01:17:40, January 26, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Sanders- I also vote in favor of moiibg to a vote. |
| Date | 01:18:40, January 26, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Sanders- I also vote in favor of moiibg to a vote. |
| Date | 01:18:54, January 26, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | *Moving |
| Date | 01:21:10, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Sarah Furhat, Ok have your sham pony show. |
| Date | 01:21:35, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Justice Gallager Move to vote |
| Date | 01:36:34, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Comrades Justices: If it please the court: Let me add one more thing. We would like to present our closing arguments. The Attorney for the Government says it is the President's JOB to name a government, and if she fails to do so in just a month over a time that a normal bill takes to pass (which is 6 months), then she is immediately thrown out of office and replaced by someone more suitable to the liking of the 162 Kalistani citizens who form the Legislative Majority, regardless of what the other 99 million Kalistani citizens might think about the issue. Let's, for a minute, give them that point. Then: Our current President not only has to name a Government, which he has, but also is in charge of representing the State abroad. What has he, or his appointed Foreign Minister done to represent Kalistan Abroad? I look through our paper, and I see absolutely NO evidence that the President of the Republic or the Foreign Minister have engaged foreign powers in any way. I see evidence that members of the Socialist Party have: We responded immediately to foreign incursion in our National territory. We have sent our members abroad to make deals with foreign arms dealers for the purpose of beginning to rebuild and modernize our Nation. What has the Defense Minister done? What has the Trade and Industry Minister done? What has the Ag Minister done? What has the Finance Minister done, except to inform us that the one thing that the Government HAS offered by way of legislation is NOT endorsed by the Finance Minister, thereby ensuring its defeat. It has been 18 months since the election of President Blake and Premier Haytham. Nearly 3 times as long as the current Government gave the former President to do something that is NOT her Job but her right. ALL activites in the Republic, save a couple interviews in the press, that have happened since the coronation of President Blake and the ramrodding of the Government bill have been conducted by members of the Opposition, while members of the current government have literally done NOTHING. Will the honorable Attorney for the Government join the Socialist Party then in supporting a vote of No Confidence against the current PRESIDENT and his Government, so that we can put someone in place who actually will do their ACTUAL jobs? Will the Liberal Democrats not be hypocritical for once and demonstrate some consistency? Or is the crux of their argument that only the LDP and the PL should rule, and any action that furthers that end is justifiable? We yield |
| Date | 01:50:50, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | You still either fail or willingly dont want to understand our point. The issue isnt that its the President’s Job/Wish/Will/Right to form a government,İT DOESNT MATTER what it is,the fact is there WAS NO GOVERNMENT therefore the LDP pushed to have EARLY ELECTİONS so we can have a GOVERNMENT stop using arguments which are not even being argued,let’s hope partisan decision shall not be taken, We rest. |
| Date | 02:08:49, January 26, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Chief Justice Steele- If all parties have had their say, The court shall go into recess while the justices make their final deliberations. |
| Date | 15:19:42, January 26, 2019 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | Steele- After consideration of the facts and careful deliberation, the court rules in favor of the Plaintiff. |
| Date | 19:33:00, January 26, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | OOC: When the Chief Justice announces the verdict on this bill, I will archive it. |
| Date | 02:16:44, December 17, 2019 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Case Before the 43rd Constitutional Court: Van Wyck v. Kennedy (4520) |
| Message | OOC: Moved to vote for Archive Purposes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 750 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The Real-Life Equivalents Index is a valuable resource for finding out the in-game equivalents of real-life cultures, languages, religions, people and places: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6731 |
| Random quote: "The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want, but your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it." - Rick Cook |