u/GeneralKaiser

We hope everyone has enjoyed a brief respite from the looming possibility of civil war.

First, for those who may be confused about why we implemented a pause and why it has taken some time: we wanted to ensure that the boundaries and limitations are defined.

In this post, I will first outline where we left off in the timeline, and then move on to explain how we intend to run the event.

The Canon Timeline

After the publication of EO 0.22 (the closure of parliament), events began to unfold at a rapid pace. The provinces—already long doubtful of the government in Callens—now perceive a real threat arising from the President’s actions. It is soon after reported that the government has indicted the leaders of the May strikes.

The Prime Minister challenges the President in court and, in an emergency session, obtains an injunction against EO 0.22. Parliament is ordered back into session.

However, away from Callens, provincial and political leaders have decided that the President has crossed a line.

An ultimatum is sent to Callens. The future hangs in the balance...

Guidelines

To organize this event, referenda have been held in all provinces to gauge public support. The greater the player support for the ultimatum in a given province, the easier it will be for the governor to mobilize that province.

The referendum results show strong support for the ultimatum in the Provinces of Tutum and Alexandria, while support is more divided in Multum and Eosara. These outcomes will influence the results of future actions.

However, player actions are not the only factor in the game. We believe that some uncertainty adds to the experience, so during the event, we will use dice to help determine the effects of certain actions. This will only apply to actions taken from this point forward and will not affect decisions made up to now.

Lastly, elections are still scheduled, if this where to change it would be due to IRP reasons and announced to everyone.

Over the last few hours a lot has happend in regards to the current crisis. From closing down Parliament we have moved to Provinces having issued a ultimatum.

The events have happend in quick succesion. In order for all players to catch up and decide what they want to do and support we will pause the timeline here.

You are free prepare your next actions but for now the timeline will not move forward.

https://preview.redd.it/flkwwih1uq3h1.png?width=684&format=png&auto=webp&s=929b0669b9032c1ed3a86c0d6bc5341ad2ece8a4

In this case a judge has used the right to dissent from the opinion of the majority. This means a judge has written a separate opinion to explain why they disagree with the majority opinion.

The majority opinion and the dissent reach the same conclusion however differ in the reasoning meaning it's concurring with the outcome of the majority opinion. The majority opinion of the court carries the force of law.

BACKGROUND

On the 28th of April member of parliament u/Maleficent-Big4417 announced the intent to resign from parliament. This was retracted mere hours later. The plaintiff has contested that Maleficent-Big4417 was allowed to retract the resignation and therefor was from the 28th of April no longer a member of parliament.

HELD

The resignation of u/Maleficent-Big4417 did no go into effect, the member was allowed to lawfully serve out their term.

OPINION

1. The constitution does not provide any procedures involving the resignation of members of parliament during the term. The legislature and president have been working on the Special Elections Amendment which has not been put up for referendum yet. This means the constitution at this moment does not provide a legal framework for resignations and how to handle these.
2. The impact of a resignation of a member of parliament means procedures should be in place to determine when a member has resigned. The Court does not view public statements as official actions by the members of parliament. Official actions include resignation and therefor have to be done by adding it to the parliamentary record. Included should be a specific time from which the member resigns. Until such time a member has not yet resigned.
3. The resignation of u/Maleficent-Big4417 was a public statement which was retracted. The Court views the member as not having resigned, therefore u/Maleficent-Big4417 was a lawful member of parliament from the 28th of April until the end of the term.

Signed,

u/GeneralKaiser, u/cheesesprite, u/Apprehensive-Loan944

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCURRING OPINION

Concurring, Justice u/SyllabubSpare9619

1. Members of parliament are elected by popular support for a full term, and should serve as such. Resignation does nothing more than turn away from the people who elected them into office; the duty must be fulfilled, and resignation must not be tolerated in this republic.
2. Zero mention of resignation in the constitution and several mentions of expulsion can be extrapolated into the fact that the constitution does not recognize resignation as legal (though this reasoning is weaker than the first one, it should still be taken into consideration)
3. Resignation defeats one of the purposes of Article II, Section III, clause 2 of the Constitution. "2. Parliament members who so refuse or shirk their important duties by refusing to attend a vote twice shall be immediately stripped of their office and refused the right to run in the following election, though may run again after." or the legislator responsibility clause, by resigning from the legislature, that member of parliament has refused their important duties without the punishment of a ban on running the next legislative election.

Signed,

u/SyllabubSpare9619, u/Tkaos42