I was advised to put a new advisory question topic up, so here it is copy-pasted:
Let us assume that there exists a Delegate, 5 Viziers, and a Magisterium. The Delegate appoints a Vizier to become the Delegate. Then, the original Delegate resigns office, citing time concerns.
The Magisterium does not vote in a new Acting Delegate, as the appointed Vizier functionally acts as a Delegate, correct?
If so, can we assume that the term to be used for an appointed Vizier to be a Delegate an Acting Delegate?
If the answer to the first question is yes, can we conclude that the right to choose a Vizier to replace the Delegate is given first to the Delegate, and the Magisterium only intervenes if the Delegate does not exercise their right to choose a replacement?
The Magisterium does not vote in a new Acting Delegate, as the appointed Vizier functionally acts as a Delegate, correct?
— End quote
The Magisterium must still vote in a Delegate even if the Delegate had appointed a Vizier to run the full Delegacy prior. Case in point being the resignation of Mexregiona. Mexregiona had appointed a Vizier to act as Delegate before subsequently resigning. The Magisterium then chose to vote an Acting Delegate. The appropriate Concordat article and section during that time read:
— Begin quote from ____
Section 13: If the Delegate is removed, resigns, or leaves office by other means, the Magisterium shall then select a Vizier as Acting Delegate until a new election for Delegate has been held.
— End quote
The present relevant section of the Concordat reads:
— Begin quote from ____
Section 9) If the Delegate is removed, resigns, or leaves office by other means, the Magisterium shall then select a Vizier as Acting Delegate until a new election for Delegate has been held.
“A Vizier ordered by the Delegate to assume the Delegacy becomes Delegate, full stop.”
— End quote
The wording of Section A.6 seems like it would make them the Delegate, which Wallenberg also agrees to in the same post:
— Begin quote from ____
“The language of a Vizier assuming the “full Delegacy” means that the Vizier not only assumes the duties and powers of the Delegate but the office itself as well, even if only on a temporary basis.”
— End quote
It sounds like you also agree to this, saying:
— Begin quote from ____
A.6 of the Concordat states the Delegate may order a Vizier to assume the full Delegacy. Meaning the office and the powers.
— End quote
I suppose what I’m getting at is, does the Acting Delegate clause ONLY trigger if the original Delegate resigns, despite the fact that the Vizier assuming the full delegacy is, for all intents and purposes, also a Delegate?
Let us assume that there exists a Delegate, 5 Viziers, and a Magisterium. The Delegate appoints a Vizier to become the Delegate. Then, the original Delegate resigns office, citing time concerns.
The Magisterium does not vote in a new Acting Delegate, as the appointed Vizier functionally acts as a Delegate, correct?
The elected Delegate has remained Delegate throughout this period, as understood by phrasing the question as one of them “resigning office”. Therefore, the Delegate has resigned and Concordat Article B.9 activates:
— Begin quote from ____
If the Delegate is removed, resigns, or leaves office by other means, the Magisterium shall then select a Vizier as Acting Delegate until a new election for Delegate has been held.
— End quote
The Magisterium still votes in a new Acting Delegate, even though the appointed Vizier was raised to full Delegate.
[hr]
If so, can we assume that the term to be used for an appointed Vizier to be a Delegate an Acting Delegate?
We cannot. Delegate and Acting Delegate are legally distinct titles. That Concordat Article A.6 uses the phrase “assume the full Delegacy” rather than “assume the title of Acting Delegate” renders these processes totally distinct.