[AQ] On the question regarding if the entire Magisterium is considered 'inactive/absent'

The Conclave
1

Honorable Arbiters of the Conclave.

I come before you today, to put forward a question of public interest, in regards to the continuation of the legislative body.

Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Standing Orders of the Magisterium, A Citizen wishing to join the Magisterium, referred to as ‘Applicant’ in 1.1 of the aforementioned document may be admitted via the provisions provided in 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
In the event of a ‘denial of acceptance’, pursuant to 1.4, the applicant may petition the Conclave to appeal a denial. If successful, pursuant to 1.5, the Conclave will instruct the Provost to admit said applicant.

To my understanding, the Provost is appointed from among the members of the Magisterium, and in the event that the Provost is absent for an extended period of time without Leave of Absence, a Deputy will become Provost pro tempore.
Likewise, pursuant to 7.1.2, if all Deputies are ineligible to assume the position of Provost pro tempore, the longest serving Magister is supposed to assume the position.

Honorable Arbiters, this concerns me greatly. In the event that there are no eligible Magisters to assume the position of Provost pro tempore, what would happen in this case?
Under 1.2.1, there would be no Provost to admit a WA Citizen.
Under 1.2.2, there would be no one available to convene a vote to admit a non-WA Citizen.
Under 1.5, there would be no Provost to admit the applicant on the instructions of the Conclave.

Additionally, in the hypothetical situation, that the Standing Orders are suspended (I am unsure if there is a provision for this) to allow the Conclave to admit an applicant to a functionally defunct Magisterium, would the newly admitted applicant be automatically considered the Provost pro tempore pursuant to 7.1.2 and would they then be able to exercise the powers given to them in Section VIII to remove Magisters pursuant to 8.1.1?

I thank the Conclave for their time and consideration of this issue.

2

On my first reading, I generally agree with the line of reasoning you come to. If the Magisterium has no Magisters, then it cannot carry out any of its functions, including admitting new Magisters.

In the event that there are no eligible Magisters to assume the position of Provost pro tempore, what would happen in this case?
The Magisterium would be unable to induct new Magisters, per its own rules.

Additionally, in the hypothetical situation, that the Standing Orders are suspended (I am unsure if there is a provision for this) to allow the Conclave to admit an applicant to a functionally defunct Magisterium, would the newly admitted applicant be automatically considered the Provost pro tempore pursuant to 7.1.2 and would they then be able to exercise the powers given to them in Section VIII to remove Magisters pursuant to 8.1.1?
Such a hypothetical is, in my opinion, too hypothetical. It suggests that certain parts of the Standing Orders of the Magisterium have been suspended while certain others remain in force. It also exists outside of the cause for the suspension of these rules. Furthermore, there is no statutory basis for Conclave to admit applicants to the Magisterium, nor any precedent which suggests such appointment powers. It also begs the question as to how a “defunct” Magisterium has Magisters that this newly inducted member could ever remove when the Standing Orders clearly lay out that one of those Magisters would already be Provost pro tempore. Perhaps in this odd scenario a Magister so inducted would become Provost pro tempore, but their very status as a Magister would be subject to great legal questionability, such that the more important question is, “Are they actually a Magister?”

3

This entire line of reasoning hinges on two assumptions - (1) The phrase “the Provost shall admit the applicant to the Magisterium” uses the active voice and thus without a Provost there can be no new Magisterium admissions. (2) Without any Magisters, there can be no Provost.

(2) is correct. Without any Magisters to serve as Provost, either pro tempore or via election, there can be no Provost, and thus its duties remained unfulfilled. However, this is an endgame scenario. If we’ve come to the point where we have no Magisterium, we’ve long passed the point where we have adapted to a critically low number of people, and this problem will have solved itself. Yes, this is an extremely hypothetical answer, but in my defense it’s an extremely hypothetical question.

So let’s think about it in terms of the impossible. Let’s say every magister resigned simultaneously today. How do we, as a region, admit Magisters?

I have two possible answers.

The first is to amend the Concordat. Article B, Section 2 grants authority over Magister induction to the Magisterium. If we amend it to specify a process, then we overcome any SOM complications.

This itself has an obstacle. Article I, Section 2 says “Section 2) The Magisterium may propose an amendment to this Concordat by a 2/3 vote; such an amendment must receive the support of 2/3 of those Citizens voting in a referendum administered by the Conclave.” The Magisterium cannot propose an amendment to the Concordat if there is no Magisterium.

In this answer, the only way forward is for the Conclave to interpret the spirit of the Concordat as allowing for Concordat amendment referendums willy nilly in the absence of a Magisterium. And then it can be amended to allow for automatic acceptance under circumstances X, Y, and Z.

My other answer is “Admit them anyway.”

The Concordat says this in Article F: “Section 3) Each Citizen shall be free to serve in any office in The East Pacific, as limited by World Assembly Membership and Concordat ratification requirements.” By that logic, the implicit “requirement” that a Provost actively accept an application is unconcordatial, and thus non-binding.

Of these, my official opinion is the second option, but I mentioned the first in order to address the argument of other duties in the absence of a Magisterium.

That may be unorganized and difficult to understand because I carelessly crafted this response with no planning or review whatsoever over various intervals with hours of time in between some paragraphs. So I’ll answer any clarifying questions that may follow.

4

I agree with Wallenburg on the first question.

I differ on the second.

The SOM can’t be suspended since it’s required to be maintained per the Concordat.

— Begin quote from ____

Section 1) This Concordat does hereby invest legislative authority in a Magisterium, which shall enact legislation and maintain Standing Orders of the Magisterium.

— End quote

Assuming the SOM is amended to have a martial law-esque system where parts are suspended and others are maintained, yes, the Conclave can admit members if outlined in the SOM but it would violate the separation of powers, a legal doctrine TEP follows. This Magister may become Provost pro tempore if outlined in the SOM. They may exercise any power entitled to them in this extremely hypothetical SOM.

I stress the extreme hypothetical nature of this.

5

Thank you all for your opinions regarding this matter.

For the second question, I believe we can lay this to rest, due to the extreme hypothetical nature of it.

In regards to the first question,
I believe there may be legal precedent from 2016 which was based on superseded versions of the SOM.

The precedents in question as listed in the Table of Precedents published by the Conclave are:

  • Should a Magisterium vote fail to reach quorum, an applicant shall be considered as denied.

  • Upon denial, a Magisterium-candidate may petition the Conclave for a citizen-wide referendum.

Furthermore, the Conclave also advised that legislative law trumps precedent.

This begs a question of clarification, would these precedents, as gazetted allow the admission of an Applicant to the Magisterium as per the processes laid out in the aforementioned precedents, despite otherwise being reliant on subsections of the SOM that have since been struck out or amended.

// Not sure if this surpassing the scope of an AQ, and would otherwise be better subjected to a Judicial Review instead

6

— Begin quote from ____

Thank you all for your opinions regarding this matter.

For the second question, I believe we can lay this to rest, due to the extreme hypothetical nature of it.

In regards to the first question,
I believe there may be legal precedent from 2016 which was based on superseded versions of the SOM.

The precedents in question as listed in the Table of Precedents published by the Conclave are:

  • Should a Magisterium vote fail to reach quorum, an applicant shall be considered as denied.

  • Upon denial, a Magisterium-candidate may petition the Conclave for a citizen-wide referendum.

Furthermore, the Conclave also advised that legislative law trumps precedent.

This begs a question of clarification, would these precedents, as gazetted allow the admission of an Applicant to the Magisterium as per the processes laid out in the aforementioned precedents, despite otherwise being reliant on subsections of the SOM that have since been struck out or amended.

// Not sure if this surpassing the scope of an AQ, and would otherwise be better subjected to a Judicial Review instead

— End quote

I advise you to read this:

I believe the opinions will answer your question.

7

— Begin quote from ____

I advise you to read this:

I believe the opinions will answer your question.

— End quote

Thank you.
I believe the opinions in the provided Advisory Question in addition to referring to the current SOC + Procedural Rules Regarding Precedent does indeed answer my question.

I have no further questions regarding this matter to present to the Conclave.