37
38

Political AnnouncementIMPORTANT: The election was unlawful. (self.democraciv)

JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University が 投稿

The recent election saw the registered voters be over the threshold capped at 20. However, the Calculation of Registered Voters Bill clearly states:

The amount of legislators elected must be under 3/4(rounded up) of the amount of candidates in the legislative elections.

With 14 candidates, there should only be 11 seats available for the legislature to fill.

The controversial emergency amendment clause put forward does not come into play as the seats are reduced and therefore there are more candidates than seats.

Therefore, the question is WHY have the moderation totally ignored the law initiated by the Legislature and confirmed by the Ministry?

This post is to publicly ask the question of the moderation.

And to urge the Legislature to take the matter to the Supreme Court, as that is the only way this is resolved.

If the constitution and the laws can be openly flouted by the moderators, there is zero point in playing this game.

I urge all to join this post and sign in the comments to show support.

全 15 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I am assuming that the moderator's have determined themselves that the law is unconstitutional. However, this is a decision that they do not have the power to make, and any rulings to determine a law is unconstitutional should be left to the SC as it's intended function.

[–]ragan651Deputy Moderator | People's Front of Housia | City Council 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Dommitor v Constitution is an interesting case - one that the court itself felt was unconstitutional and did not rule on. It was the previous head moderator who ultimately decided that. However, that ruling was not legal without a constitutional amendment.

This law is based on a blatant rewrite of the Constitution without a public referendum.

Edit: In fact, I could technically invalidate it right now - as the only means of changing the constitution by a mod is by Emergency Amendment, which must be put to referendum withing 72 hours. No referendum was held by the previous head mod - any change to the constitution he approved would be invalidated in 3 days.

[–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

That may be so. But the argument is that you must repeal it through the SC. You do not have the power to ignore it.

edit:

In fact, I could technically invalidate it right now - as the only means of changing the constitution by a mod is by Emergency Amendment, which must be put to referendum withing 72 hours. No referendum was held by the previous head mod - any change to the constitution he approved would be invalidated in 3 days.

That's 100% false and I hope you know it.

The law was enacted through legislature, not through emergency amendment. The law may be unconstitutional, but it is a LAW that passed. It has not changed the constitution, it merely contradicts it.

Edit 2: On rereading, I've realised that /u/ragan651 is solely talking about the case law of Dommitor v Constitution.

The breach of law in the election that I have referenced in the OP is not about this case law but is a breach of the CRV Bill. Which is a piece of law passed by both the Legislation and Ministry.

[–]LivesInASixWordStory 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

IANAdemocracivL, but I am a citizen who missed the vote.

I agree that this is the sort of thing one would expect to go through the SC. Otherwise what's the point if a mod can ignore laws?

One point though: there is no difference between saying a law is "unconstitutional" and saying it contradicts the constitution.

[–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right. If you reread, you'll see that I have said the law doesn't ALTER the constitution. It simply contradicts it.

[–]jcfjrCommercial Expansion Party | English Free Press 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree and sign my name to this. I believe that Jawdan is correct in saying only the court has the legal power to resolve any conflicts between law and constitution. It probably should have been brought before the court for official review. The law itself should have been contested long before the election, but here we are.

All that being said, I would like to also express my sympathy to the mods. I am certain that this breach of conduct was not done maliciously and I hope we can come to a speedy conclusion to this issue.

[–]darthspectrumQueen Das 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're barking up the wrong tree asking the legislature to go ask the Moderators to fire half of them. I'd recommend asking the Ministry to sue them, or asking ANY specific legislator to rally to your side. All it takes it one of them to bring a court, and it will be heard.

Ideally so many people who said they are the voices of the people will be more than happy to bring forth the case.

Good luck, and excellent catch!

[–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've appeared to upset quite a few people. Unfortunate as that was not my goal.

I assumed the Legislature would have preferred to protect their own power in their Legislation. Knowing that CRV is easily overturned and they'd get their spots back.

Once CRV is appealed and nullified a suit would be useless.

[–]Sacha862NDP 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I agree that something should be amended here. Although how, that's up for debate.

[–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

We have a couple of options. The moderation can declare it was a mathematical error, and recounut/fix the seats to CRV.

They would then be free to submit a Judicial Review on CRV as it has been activated.

OR

The mods can ignore that they have skipped a law. And then the legislature will be forced to protect their power and go to the SC with an intragovernment dispute.

[–]AcetiusThe Night Time Mod 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The law being activated is not a requirement for judicial review.

[–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, cheers. I wonder where I got that mixed up from.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]JawdanAssociate Dean - Meier Law University[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Wait, what?

    [–]Emass100The New Constitution is Necessary! 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    https://www.reddit.com/r/democraciv/comments/5g6vxl/the_crv_an_opinion_from_its_most_virulent/?st=IW8Z2PZH&sh=ce2ea3bd

    My answer to this, pretty much a rundown of the current constitutional crisis since it started in September.