 |
|  |
 |
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
First, I'm not going to debate in a "legal" way, though I can when I want to. I'm going to see if I can set a precedent, because I think that letting courts devolve into what they've become in the real world would be BAD.
Anyway, I don't think that anything can or should be done about what happened. I think that the court should rule what Timeline did illegal, so it doesn't happen again. It will lead to many blatantly political maneuvers that can do nothing but harm for the Demo Game. Whether what Timeline did was in the best interest of Apolytonia then is unimportant, because it sets the stage for less benign things.
I say what Timeline did constitutes "changing offices". The Code of Laws specifically state that "A member can run for a different office at the end of his term, but he cannot change offices during it."
Also, in response to the statement that the charges are outdated, I again point to the fact that I'm not seeking a penalty, just a decision on how to apply this part of the Code of Laws in the future.
FINISHED
|
|
|  |
 |
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002 time: 22:21
|
|
At this time, I would like to move that this case be dismissed on the basis that the alleged violation occured before the court was assembled, and therefore the court should have no jurisdiction over it. There is nothing in the CoL forbidding the court from ruling on the past as of yet, but the Impeachment ammendment which is currently winning in it's poll includes:
The Code of Laws can never be amended retroactively and be made to apply to an act committed prior to the amendment.
While not in actual practice yet, this ammendment has been subject to many weeks of debate, and the public has clearly made a point that they wish this to be included. A precidence can be set when and if such a violation occurs in the future, and since the plaintif is seeking nothing more than clarification of that particular section, it can be handled in a number of other ways, including much of the reform currently taking place, or another ammendment to clarify if truly needed. There is no need to drag the court into this.
Finished
edit: got my legal jargon backwards, I am defending, not skywalker
Last edited by UnOrthOdOx on 10-08-2002 at 01:34
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|