In Defense of the RA

[Jon Seattle]

Michel has, well, been publicly questioning the decision to continue the RA session through the end of our term. I fully support Claude’s decision to continue our work, avoiding any meeting during the voting period.

1. We were elected with the responsibility to consider bills that have been submitted. Any person can submit a bill in the CDS. We have a duty not to shirk our responsibility by avoiding the consideration we give to each.

2. We have a long backlog of bills that we are now working through in the order they were placed on our agenda. Moon and I have bills that have been sitting there stalled since mid-November. Most of our time has been spent handing judicial issues. As far as I know, no prior RA has had anything like our backlog.

3. The RA term of office runs to the end of the month (see CDS constitution Article I section 2). We are not meeting while voting is taking place. The constitution requires the RA to meet each month (Article I section 4).

4. Michel took this question before the Scientific Council (our equivalent of the Supreme Court for constitutional matters) and lost. See [url:3m4q6t7i]http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=823[/url:3m4q6t7i] .

5. The claim that somehow trying to get through the backlog will allow us to influence the election is not at all plausible. Michel complains about bills he objects to (Moon’s “Citizen Involvement Bill”) but he forgot to mention that at the same meeting we considered and passed a bill that was submitted by a CARE member. His objection seems highly selective.

6. The US has just elected a new congress (both the senate and the house) but the new congress will not be seated until the beginning of January. This is true, also, of most state legislatures. They do not stop work before or after the election. It seems to me that we can little afford to walk away from our work.

[michelmanen]

[quote:k1u56gxm]
1. We were elected with the responsibility to consider bills that have been submitted. Any person can submit a bill in the CDS. We have a duty not to shirk our responsibility by avoiding the consideration we give to each.[/quote:k1u56gxm]

The RA also has the duty to uphold basic principles of democracy, rule of law, and constitutional propriety in order to preserve its legitimacy and integrity in the eyes of its electorate. This RA has signally failed to do so.

[quote:k1u56gxm]
2. We have a long backlog of bills that we are now working through in the order they were placed on our agenda. Moon and I have bills that have been sitting there stalled since mid-November. Most of our time has been spent handing judicial issues. As far as I know, no prior RA has had anything like our backlog.
[/quote:k1u56gxm]

This is a rather stark endictment of this RA's conduct of public business during its mandate, isn't it? Maybe if this RA would not have focused almost exclusively on the judiciary, adopted a more collaborative and collegial approach with the other branches of goverment (as CARE is proposing to do if elected) and actually considered those bills and problems which are of most concern to the majority of our fellow citizens, we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess we are stuck in today..

[quote:k1u56gxm]3. The RA term of office runs to the end of the month (see CDS constitution Article I section 2). We are not meeting while voting is taking place. The constitution requires the RA to meet each month (Article I section 4).[/quote:k1u56gxm]

The recognised an unbroken constitutional tradition of the CDS, as clearly confirmed by the Dean of the SC, is that the RA does not meet during the two weeks preceeding the election period. This tradition has never been broken - until this RA chose to do so.

[quote:k1u56gxm]4. Michel took this question before the Scientific Council (our equivalent of the Supreme Court for constitutional matters) and lost. See http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=823 .[/quote:k1u56gxm]

The SC decided that the RA could violate with impunity this tradition if it chose to do so. It did not state in any way whatsover that such an action was proper, ethical, democratic or in accordance with the rule of law.

And "I" lost nothing personally - our entire community finds itself on the losing end of being burdened with an RA whose legitimacy and integrity have been severy eroded and undermined by its very own, deliberate actions.

[quote:k1u56gxm]5. The claim that somehow trying to get through the backlog will allow us to influence the election is not at all plausible. Michel complains about bills he objects to (Moon’s “Citizen Involvement Bill”) but he forgot to mention that at the same meeting we considered and passed a bill that was submitted by a CARE member. His objection seems highly selective.[/quote:k1u56gxm]

The very fact that both the CSDF and DPU made the adoption of this bill a central plank in their debates in order to parry key points of the CARE agenda:

[quote:k1u56gxm]
Justice Soothsayer: A good example is the kind of citizen consultation in the legislative process that Michel mentioned earlier. We did that, in the discussions about the judiciary, and, just this morning... the RA passed a bill setting up a structure for future commissions whenever they are needed. It was a bill that passed unanimously, but only after thorough discussion about the policies (not the personalities) involved, and with amendments offered and adopted by both sides. So when others might talk about grand plans, we've actually implemented them. And CDS is better for it.[/quote:k1u56gxm]

is clear and incontrovertible proof that this is exactly what the current RA members either attempted to do, or were perceived as doing, by passing this legislation [i:k1u56gxm]in extremis[/i:k1u56gxm], minutes before the polls opened and hours before the debate in which they used the adoption of this very bill in order to attempt to score debating points against an opponent who had advocated the principles behind this "stalled" legislation for the past two weeks. If you still cannot see the utter impropriety of this RA's actions in this case and the utter disrepute it has brought upon it, I cannot see how else to make you understand it.

And, for the record, I disagree with the adoption of both bills - even the one submitted by a CARE member (and of which I was not aware, since I refused to attend the RA's meeting held in such disastrous circumstances for its very own legitimacy and standing in the CDS), which was that individual's private bill and in no way shape or form represent an offical CARE position or has offical CARE endorsement (even if CARE might adopt and support its substantive content had it been submitted and adopted in different circumstances).

[quote:k1u56gxm]6. The US has just elected a new congress (both the senate and the house) but the new congress will not be seated until the beginning of January. This is true, also, of most state legislatures. They do not stop work before or after the election. It seems to me that we can little afford to walk away from our work.[/quote:k1u56gxm]

Are US legislatures held in such high regard and esteem by the vast majority of US citizens that we should be compelled to follow their example even in cases where their actions are clearly misguided? As to walking away from its work - thislegislature could afford even less to take actions which eroded and undermined its legitimacy and stading in the CDS and left it open to charges of misuse of power, blatant partisanship, violation of constitutional traditions, and ethical misconduct. Perhaps, if this RA had managed its case-load better and paid attention to the bills and issues truly important to the average citizens of this community, rather than spend six months almost exclusively focusing on barren, useless, conterproductive, conflictual, and destructive debates about the judiciary, this situation would not have arisen. Either way, there is not much positive to say about the legislative record of this RA over the past six months or the manner it chose to manage, prioritise and conduct its business.

[Flyingroc Chung]

[quote="michelmanen":1icmmoug][quote:1icmmoug]4. Michel took this question before the Scientific Council (our equivalent of the Supreme Court for constitutional matters) and lost. See http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=823 .[/quote:1icmmoug]

The SC decided that the RA could violate with impunity this tradition if it chose to do so. It did not state in any way whatsover that such an action was proper, ethical, democratic or in accordance with the rule of law.
[/quote:1icmmoug]
Surely the SC has at least decided that choosing to meet during this time period was in accordance with the rule of law?

[michelmanen]

Not at all. It never stated so. All it decided was that the RA could violated its own long-standing and un broken tradition with no fear of reprisals. That is the beginning and end of he SC decision.

[Justice Soothsayer]

[quote="michelmanen":1vp1bapg]Not at all. It never stated so. All it decided was that the RA could violated its own long-standing and un broken tradition with no fear of reprisals. That is the beginning and end of he SC decision.[/quote:1vp1bapg]
The SC discussion noted that the RA is constitutionally required to meet once per fortnight. Refraining from meeting while the polls are open might be advisable, but is certainly not required.

[Beathan]

Michel --

The SC''s job is to decide Constitutional issues. It decided that the RA meeting did not violate the Constitution. Surely this means that the RA's actions comports with rule of Constituional law under the CDS Constitution. What else could it mean?

Further, you have failed to identify any other law that the meeting violated. You have stated that it violates RA "tradition." However, you have also argued that CDS tradition does not have legal force. For instance, you have resisted tradition and enculturation as important qualifiactions for office. Which is it? Is tradition a basis for law, or not? Surely, you can't really be claiming that the traditions you like are law, and those you don't are not -- but that is what you seem to be saying.

Further, as Claude has pointed out, you are misreading RA tradition in this regard. The RA has failed to meet not because of the pendency of the election, but because the election coincided with times when RA members had RL time conflicts that prevented them from attending the RA.

It seems that the "rule of law" to which you appeal is actually an appeal to Michel Manen's own preference -- or to whatever procedure would result in the legislation Michel Manen prefers. You made similar specious arguments against the repeal of the JA. It seems to me that you would have been best pleased if this RA dissolved as soon as it passed the JA at the beginning of the term.

It is just this kind of questioning-begging argument masquerading as "principle" that most of your critics find offensive and hypocritical. Personally, I consider hypocrisy the greatest of public sins. You will never find me signing on to or supporting proposals that say one thing but mean something quite different. Thus, I don't support CARE.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Beathan,

We shall soon find out if the rest of the 70-odd citizens of the CDS share your views.

Regards,

Michel Manen

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":3063lcjo]Not at all. It never stated so. All it decided was that the RA could violated its own long-standing and un broken tradition with no fear of reprisals. That is the beginning and end of he SC decision.[/quote:3063lcjo]This is untrue, a misrepresentation (yet again) of the outcome of the SC meeting.

The SC was asked, by Michel, to rule if it was unconstitutional for the RA to meet during the two weeks before the polls open. The SC ruled that it was constitutional.

[michelmanen]

Indeed. It ruled it was constitutional. It did not rule this did not constitute a breach of its own long-established and upheld customs and traditions - nor did it rule it was ethical, democratic, and in accordance with the rule of law.

By ruling that it was constitutional, it effectively said : You are not violating the letter of the law - no measures wil be taken against you if you do. This is the full extent of the SC's decision.

For your benefit, we had a similar situation in Canada in 1982 when the Federal Govenment took the decision to repatriate the Canadian constitution from London without the approval of the Quebec government, who traditionally was entitled to exercise a veto over all constitutional decisions affecting it. The Quebec Government tooks its objection to the Supreme Court of Canada, whose wise holding was that although the Federal Government's action was indeed constitutional in that it did not violate the clear text of the constitution, it did violate long-established and respected customs and needeed to at least ensure it had the support of a clear majority of the other provinces in order to porceed.

The SC's decision was more basic (and less justifiable): it simply ruled that by not violating the letter of the constitution, the RA's decision was constitutional. It did not address other issues of custom, convention, long-esablished and upheld customs and traditions, ethical prporiety or respect fot the rule of law. I said then and repeat now that, in acting in such amanner, the SC did itself and our entire community a great disservice.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":3bcul8io]Indeed. It ruled it was constitutional. It did not rule this did not constitute a breach of its own long-established and upheld customs and traditions - nor did it rule it was ethical, democratic, and in accordance with the rule of law.
...
It did not address other issues of custom, convention, long-esablished and upheld customs and traditions, ethical prporiety or respect fot the rule of law. I said then and repeat now that, in acting in such amanner, the SC did itself and our entire community a great disservice.[/quote:3bcul8io]I am pleased to see that Michel accepts that the SC did what it is supposed to do: rule on constitutionality.

The SC did not address issues of custome etc. because it has no powers to do so. The Judiciary Act, which Michel is so fond of, removed the power of the SC to provide interpretation based on 'the Founding Philosophy'. The SC must rule on the basis of what is written in the Constitution and Code of Law. If Michel, or anyone else, wants to restore that power to the SC then a Constitutional Amendment will be needed.

If the SC [b:3bcul8io][i:3bcul8io]were [/i:3bcul8io][/b:3bcul8io]to have ruled the RA meeting unconstitutional it would have been acting beyond its powers as defined in the Constitution. What Michel is arguing for here is for the SC to declare a legally-constituted meeting of the peoples' representatives, and the decisions taken by that meeting, null and void. I understand the reason why - a last-ditch attempt to save the repealed elements of the Judiciary Act by any means necessary - but does anyone really think it helps our democracy for the SC to frustrate the express will of the peoples' elected representatives [b:3bcul8io][i:3bcul8io]when there is no constitutional basis for doing so[/i:3bcul8io][/b:3bcul8io]?