by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Post

Region: The Leftist Assembly

Red actions

Nangka wrote:Legal Ruling #7
Opinion of the 20th Supreme Court Regarding the Dual Citizenship Act and whether or not it prohibits dual citizens from running in The Leftist Assembly's elections

Co-Founder Llorens sought the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding whether a Leftist Assembly dual citizen may be nominated for elected office if they currently hold office in another region.

It should be noted that Standing Justice Antinios recused themselves from participating in this legal ruling due to a potential conflict of interest, as they were considering running in the upcoming general election. Therefore, Chief Justice Nangka used his powers to grant Alternate Justice Ghillemear the powers and privileges of a Standing Justice for this specific case. These powers and privileges will be returned to Standing Justice Antinios upon the conclusion of the case.

Furthermore, due to the time constraints presented by the case, with the election only days away as of writing, the Supreme Court begs The Leftist Assembly for consideration because it was not able to grant such an important ruling the time and in-depth discussion it deserves to have.

That being said, based on the Supreme Court's own deliberations, it has come to the conclusion that, while the Dual Citizenship Act technically does not prohibit a dual citizen from running in The Leftist Assembly's elections while holding office in another region, there is an implicit intent to hold office if the dual citizen wins the election.

Therefore, the Supreme Court finds that a dual citizen cannot run in The Leftist Assembly's elections while holding an elected or appointed office in another region. If the dual citizen wishes to run for office in The Leftist Assembly, they must immediately step down from the elected or appointed office that they currently hold.

It should be noted that, due to the time constraints the Supreme Court mentioned above, it was not able to delve deeper into whether or not dual citizens are allowed to run in two or more concurrent elections. While an opinion has been raised within the Court about prohibiting this, the Court unfortunately was not able to put more time into discussing this matter, and thus asks that The Leftist Assembly take this conversation up at a later date.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court strongly recommends that the next government of The Leftist Assembly put forward a relevant amendment to the Dual Citizenship Act that can clarify the language of the law in such a way as to better suit the needs and desires of the community regarding the status of its dual citizens.

We hope that this ruling can clarify all the concerns the community has raised regarding any confusion within the Dual Citizenship Act.

Unity in Diversity,
Justice for All

Twentieth Supreme Court of The Leftist Assembly

Chief Justice Nangka
Standing Justice Antinios
Standing Justice Sincadenas
Alternate Justice Ghillemear

Okay, I'd like to contest this please.

As you correctly identify in your ruling, the law at no point prohibits me from standing.
I would like to bring attention to multiple aspects of this ruling:

1- The Dual Citizen Act, which reads:
Dual citizens shall be prohibited from concurrently holding an elected or appointed office, or holding direct power over the given office, in another region

It does, in fact, specify that I cannot hold office in both. Standing, whilst indicating my desire to have the office of MGA, does not in itself mean I hold 2 offices, meaning I am legally compliant. Nowhere in law does it say a candidate cannot have a position elsewhere. I would ask the court to follow the word of the law when making its decisions.

2- Section 2C of the Elections Act, which reads:
All electoral citizens shall be eligible to nominate for the General Assembly

I ask the court, am I not an electoral citizen? Does this very law, the central post of our great democracies elections in any way prevent me from standing? I will answer for you- it does not.

3- At no point was I, the disenfranchised citizen of TLA, asked about my intent. I was not present nor even informed there was a legal case against my standing for Member of General Assembly.

It is for these 3 reasons that I formally request my removal be reconsidered and rectified. I fully intend to stand for office, and do so in full compliance of The Leftist Assembly's Laws.

ContextReport