The below are events that took place in the Aequitas High Court. If you would like to join the Discord Server, click here:
https://discord.gg/qgWghPn3dQ
COURT SUMMARY
According to the information the court has been provided on this case, Aequitas v. Caosclotia, we believe the following is true:
Caosclatia was a known member of the Aequitas government. They served the government (pre-constitution) as the Secretary of State and served in many other capacities. From evidence gathered the court knows it to be true that Caosclatia left for one day (pre-constitution) to form their own alliance. Later that day the alliance was dissolved and Caosclotia rejoined Aequitas. Only a few days later a new constitution was accepted by the people of Aequitas. ( #constitution for more info) This constitution states in Article II, Section I: The Commsident of the Aequitas International shall have an Alliance Seniority of 35 days... This means that at the time of the constitution Caoclotia was not fit to run per this rule even though they had already surpassed 35 days in their previous stint before their 1-day absence. The situation was made worse when Caosclotia decided to run and in doing so was asked to stand down from the race because of their lack of alliance seniority. The case that stands before you was raised by the defendant Caosclotia and is a plea for loose constructionism. It is also a case that, by the Prosecutor, is one deciding the fate of strict constructionism in this government. Good luck justices, prosecution, and defendants as this will surely be a historic case that will test everyone.
MAJORITY OPINION (Written by the Judges):
The Judges of Aequitas saw this case as a great way to show our interpretation of the constitution. While on first glance this case may seem like it would have very little impact on future cases that assumption is mistaken. During this case as well, we were able to lock down a definition of what seniority means and how we should interpret the now infamous Article II Section I. We also strongly considered how actions taken outside of the alliance could affect future alliance members. With all that said what did our decision change in respect to the above statements? Well for one it showed that the judges are willing to take a stricter look at the constitution and are willing to interpret it more narrowly. This isn’t bad it just means that we want to see the law get followed to the letter with few exceptions. While it’s too early to tell this for sure this case does indicate something like that. As for what we think seniority means, the judges with this decision are going to mainly interpret seniority as a strict thing. It is what the number on your nation page is. There aren’t going to be any exceptions to that. It also shows that same respect for the rest of Article II Section I. The judges believe that a harder look on requirements is necessary for the right candidates to be chosen. Finally taking a look at actions outside of our alliance. The judges, with this case, are signifying that what goes on even if it isn’t related to Aequitas is Aequitas’ business. By taking a view at the defendants outside engagement and saying that outside engagement means that the defendant officially left the alliance they are stating that it matters a ton. Had they said the opposite we would be stating that what happens outside the alliance had no bearing on what happens in it.
Final Decision: The court of The Aequitas International Alliance rules against the Defendants claims and votes in favor of the prosecution. We believe that the nation Caosclotia is presently unfit to run for Commsident as they lack the seniority required by Article II Section I to do so.
Voting: The Judges voted Unanimously. (3-0)
If you would like to submit a case to the Aequitas High Court Message me or a member of Federation of Justice directly. If you would like to join the Discord and watch things play out firsthand here it is: https://discord.gg/qgWghPn3dQ
Thanks!
Replies
For TAI we’re currently electing a new president. For the court we partnered with the alliance Federation of Justice and they administer the courts as a secure third party
There's no point in having such a rigid constitution and such. It is clear that caosclotia is unfit to run, because of his attempts to betray and form a new alliance. The fact that he rejoined and immediately asked for position is invalid, as it can pose threat to the alliance. The whole case was impractical and it just proves that you guys need to learn how to run an alliance especially in terms of experience, and study case-studies from numerous alliances.
Like we said in the opinion above the court reached the same conclusion. The only way this case could have been solved was by a court. We were able to thoroughly investigate the causes and reasons that this event happened. Because of our in depth anallysis we were able to reach, what believe to be, the correct verdict. I’d like to rebuttal and say in no other alliance is this much attention to detail provided to each member. We truly care for our membership and constitution and it shows here.
Democracy won't work they said. It's too unstable they said 😏.
Democracy is unstable in nano alliances. My alliance had been a victim of such actions. I remember being in NATO where a multi almost took over by getting elected, and the fact you guys didn't face so is mostly due to strong governance and trust in each other. I don't dislike your alliance, but at some points you guys are doing really unnecessary work. But yeah, I would say this in general but beware of multi nations and don't let some random nation suddenly take over the alliance. NATO, the alliance I had lived in had almost collapsed for such. I can provide you guys the multi-buster tool which can help you guys identify such people.
We have safeguards in place in the constitution for such an event. For one we placed a minimum seniority you must have to run (it’s why Caosclotia couldn’t run) and we also have given powers of impeachment to congress. If you want to give a look over our constitution send me a message and I’ll happily provide it. You can use your experience in a former democratic alliances to help us out.
I know there are some inherent flaws with democratic nanos but I think we have a great group of people here and if anyone stands a chance of overcoming the odds it’s us.
Caosclotia wasn’t treasonous or anything the court just thought it best to strictly uphold the constitution. it sets a good precedent because later on if someone who actually is a treasonous individual comes along they cannot immediately seize control.
I’ll send out a link to everyone where you can vote.
I’m just reading this in depth, but this is the kind of thing I like to see in an alliance: a good measure of publicity and the institution of rules based upon a judicial ruling on a constitutional government. Perhaps it’s time for a new breed of alliance, where democracy reigns.