Asendavia AKA Ian has been a foundational member of the Urth community for as long as I’ve known him since I returned to TEP, a member of TEP since 2016, and a Vizier since 2020. He’s been on the court before and is now willing to serve again: I know him to be a consistently active and generally reserved and thoughtful individual, and someone who I trust to fairly and effectively analyze and interpret the law and bring a “gameplay” politics-agnostic and practical mindset to the court. I nominate him for the open Arbiter position and open the floor to discussion by the Magisterium.
Yes
As is tradition for Arbiter nominations since these events trasnpired, What is your legal analysis of the 2022 ConCrisis ruling?
1 Like
In addition to Shadow’s question, what are your thoughts on the most recent criminal case (that I remember), TEP v Jo on the charges of Treason and Omission?
(I only ask this because, if I remember correctly, this was asked to me during my own nomination period)
I have been beaten to the punch — as always, the answer to Shadow’s question can make or break my vote, but do note that I greatly appreciate Asendavia’s dedication and record of service.
The entire ConCrisis hinged on the specific words “repeal and replace” in Section 1 of Article G of the Concordat of that time. During its judicial review of the section, the majority opinion of the Conclave stated “The February 2020 Concordat was introduced, passed, and ratified through the amendment process. However, it is not actually a legitimate amendment. It also neither repeals nor replaces the July 2019 Concordat, being illegitimate and therefore inactive.”
I first of all believe that the words “repeal and replace” had no actual true legal effect within the February 2020 Concordat. Although it had been generally styled as a “New” Concordat, my view of the situation is that it shared the same legal continuity as the “Old” Concordat precisely because it went through the legal amendment process and was passed by the magisterium in a vote and the citizenry via referendum. For all intents and purposes, I believe that no “repeal and replace” actually legally occurred (partly also because no such process actually exists for the Concordat) and that the words themselves amounted to no more than fluff for the stylization of the large-scale amendment of the Concordat as a “New” Concordat. That being said, in hindsight, it would’ve been better for clarification’s sake if it had never been termed as a “repeal and replace” to begin with and it’s for the best that we eventually got rid of the phrasing.
Notably, also, I tend to be a strong advocate for the spirit of the law rather than necessarily what it always strictly says (though I am by no means saying that the written word is not important), which is part of why I hold some of my opinions on the matter. I believe their strict adherence to the specific words “repeal and replace” was detrimental to everyone, when as previously mentioned, I view the phrase to have no true legal effect both because it went through a legal amendment process and because to view it as strictly as they did, leading to their interpretation, went against the spirit of it.
To sum it up in short, I am more or less of the opinion that the majority opinion of the Conclave at that time had a faulty and incorrect interpretation and were wrong in their verdict.
4 Likes
Voting for.
Same, support~
For the most part I think I agree with the conclusion/verdict that the Appellate Trial came to (especially in regards to its clarification on the matter of the application of TEP’s laws to non-citizens). After having reread the trials, I would have also come to the conclusion that no High Treason was committed. The Omission charge is where my feelings are a tad more complicated. From a purely security mindset, I would not have opposed a guilty verdict on that charge, but I also can’t fully disagree with the not guilty verdict that was arrived at in the Appellate Trial
I motion to vote.
Seconded
This discussion topic has been closed per the Standing Orders. If you would like to continue discussion on this topic please contact a member of the Office of the Provost.
See: Vote Topic