*A note arrives to the effect that Woodrow Park plans to file an Amicus Curiae brief tomorrow.*
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
BY DECLARATION OF THE HIGH COURT
Public Notice: Per Alan Jones, Minister of Finance and named defendant in the suit Al'Sahwari v. Jones, having maintained the office of Minister of Finance in the Term XIV elections, must file his answer to Plaintiff's complaint within the next 14 days. Failure to do so will result in waiver of his right to defense, and a directed verdict at the Court's discretion.
- Marcos, J., per curia.
Rebuttal by Respondent: al'Sahwari v. Jones
"I would like to reiterate what my colleague, the former Finance Minister, Rvd. Park has already put before the High Court, especially the information he has recently put forward. This case has come out of the ill-described functions of the Interior and Finance Ministries in relations to vehicle regestrations.
The Constitution of Eutopia however does clearly state, the Interior Ministry controls infastructure, the roads and railways, the real property of transit. It also states the Finance Ministry controls regulation of commerce, vis-a-ve the private property of transit, the vehicles themselves.
The regulations in question do not effect the limousine industry of Eutopia, which is ultimately the stimulus of this case, they effect super-stretch limoes, a very small segment of a very small class of vehicle driven on the road, mainly in the packed city streets of Eutopia City and New Lancaster. They take up large parking spaces, produce larger amounts of pollution than your average car or limousine for that matter and have only the purpose of being frivalous, while being a nuisance to other city drivers.
Revolving around this issue prior to the filing of al'Sahwari v. Jones, some in opposition to the regulations declared it would stop lower income groups like teenagers for their proms or poorer families for weddings from hiring a super-stretch due to a rise in prices. Yet such groups don't usually hire them anyway, for both weddings and high school proms luxury, extended sedans are the norm, they are not effected by the regualtions. The number 1 clients of super-stretch limousines are the wealthy, generally of the highest income bracket. The rises in price caused by the regulations are hardly going to impact such people, who already had to pay high prices for the service prior to the regulations being implemented.
Both under Rvd. Park's leadership and my own, the Finance Ministry has had channels open for any all with a vested interest in this issue to come forward for discussion and compromise yet no-one, not Per al'Sahwari or any other member of the super-stretch limousine business came forward to oppose it's implementation, to show us the negative effects the regulations will have on the economy, their own personal finance or anything else.
Not only has no other, of the admitedley few, super-stretch limo owners stepped forward to complain about the regualtion but Per al'Sahwari did not come forward until the Party of Liberty offered to finance any suit against the regulations that they opposed on ideological grounds.
Quite frankly as this case is supposedly covering the inter-twined responsibilities of the Interior and Finance Ministries, I somehow doubt it would have come about if registration fees against super-stretchs were involved, I also doubt Per al'Sahwari would have come forward to defend his view point of the constitution had he not had the backing of Liberty who have basically given him a free shot at regaining his revenue.
Ultimately, no one else but Per al'Sahwari of the super-stretch limousine business seems to strongly oppose the regulations or the Finance Ministry's place in creating them. The Ministry's internet forum, hotline and in-house discussion area on the matter have all been quiet because no one else again seems to oppose the two former. Former Interior Ministers have accepted the Finance Ministry's actions as well. This case is built around a perception of what the Constitution says, an opinion, and the simple fact is, those who see the Finance Ministry in the wrong are also in the minority"
"I would like to reiterate what my colleague, the former Finance Minister, Rvd. Park has already put before the High Court, especially the information he has recently put forward. This case has come out of the ill-described functions of the Interior and Finance Ministries in relations to vehicle regestrations.
The Constitution of Eutopia however does clearly state, the Interior Ministry controls infastructure, the roads and railways, the real property of transit. It also states the Finance Ministry controls regulation of commerce, vis-a-ve the private property of transit, the vehicles themselves.
The regulations in question do not effect the limousine industry of Eutopia, which is ultimately the stimulus of this case, they effect super-stretch limoes, a very small segment of a very small class of vehicle driven on the road, mainly in the packed city streets of Eutopia City and New Lancaster. They take up large parking spaces, produce larger amounts of pollution than your average car or limousine for that matter and have only the purpose of being frivalous, while being a nuisance to other city drivers.
Revolving around this issue prior to the filing of al'Sahwari v. Jones, some in opposition to the regulations declared it would stop lower income groups like teenagers for their proms or poorer families for weddings from hiring a super-stretch due to a rise in prices. Yet such groups don't usually hire them anyway, for both weddings and high school proms luxury, extended sedans are the norm, they are not effected by the regualtions. The number 1 clients of super-stretch limousines are the wealthy, generally of the highest income bracket. The rises in price caused by the regulations are hardly going to impact such people, who already had to pay high prices for the service prior to the regulations being implemented.
Both under Rvd. Park's leadership and my own, the Finance Ministry has had channels open for any all with a vested interest in this issue to come forward for discussion and compromise yet no-one, not Per al'Sahwari or any other member of the super-stretch limousine business came forward to oppose it's implementation, to show us the negative effects the regulations will have on the economy, their own personal finance or anything else.
Not only has no other, of the admitedley few, super-stretch limo owners stepped forward to complain about the regualtion but Per al'Sahwari did not come forward until the Party of Liberty offered to finance any suit against the regulations that they opposed on ideological grounds.
Quite frankly as this case is supposedly covering the inter-twined responsibilities of the Interior and Finance Ministries, I somehow doubt it would have come about if registration fees against super-stretchs were involved, I also doubt Per al'Sahwari would have come forward to defend his view point of the constitution had he not had the backing of Liberty who have basically given him a free shot at regaining his revenue.
Ultimately, no one else but Per al'Sahwari of the super-stretch limousine business seems to strongly oppose the regulations or the Finance Ministry's place in creating them. The Ministry's internet forum, hotline and in-house discussion area on the matter have all been quiet because no one else again seems to oppose the two former. Former Interior Ministers have accepted the Finance Ministry's actions as well. This case is built around a perception of what the Constitution says, an opinion, and the simple fact is, those who see the Finance Ministry in the wrong are also in the minority"
"That only one person chooses to complain, or who funds his suit, is of no moment here." Chief Justice Clay glances at her Deputy Chief. "I have some questions for Per Park, who is a material witness in this matter. Issue a subpoena for him, if you would be so kind," she orders a clerk.
By Order of the High Court
Per Al'Sahwari, petitioner in the case Al'Sahwari v. Jones shall have 7 days from the issuing of this order to file his rebuttal, or else waive the right to do so. Further tardiness may result in the dismissal of the case.
- Marcos, J. per curia.
With no word from President Gonzov about the start of the peace talks, Woody figures he should get his testimony out of the way now, so his calendar will be clear later. He queries his information sources about whether the Tilapian have stopped dropping bombs on New Bengal, flies back from London, makes his way to the High Court, clears security, waits for the judges to get to the point of their day when he can be shown into the chamber, and is sworn in as a witness, using his own Bible.
"Thank you for coming, Reverend," says Justice Clay after Park is sworn and shown to the witness box. "I have a few questions regarding the regulations you put into place. Can you explain the rationale underlying them? What was your primary reason for doing so?"
"Your Honors"
Woody nods to the bench.
"Justice Clay, your question, if I understand it correctly, appears to personalize the activity of the Finance Ministry in the Finance Minister. I would prefer it said that I approved the implementation of regulations developed by the Ministry through a consultative process, in which the public at large was requested to provide their input. I will restrict my response to the part of the regulation in question, not the portion regarding seatbelts.
One of the duties of the Finance Ministry is to regulate domestic and foreign commerce of the nation. We have, in general, a market economy. For most goods and services, this works best. But its proper functioning requires certain regulations. Market economies work well in countries were contracts are honored. This is a benefit that the justice system has provided our country, for which I thank you. But other features are needed as well. The essence of a market economy is comparison shopping. If you go into a grocery store to buy a one pound loaf of bread, you don't want to have to weigh each one to make sure it is a pound. That is inefficient, and costs the consumer time. You don't want to find out after you are out on a picnic or have your children find out at school lunchtime that the bakery mixed sawdust in with the flour. If that unregulated competition is allowed to exist, it makes our economy much less efficient.
Some goods and services are not priced. We don't pay for the air we breathe. We don't pay for public education up through high school. We don't pay for health care. That is because we have decided that people need air, primary and secondary education, and health care, and if we charged for them, our nation would be worse off because there might be insufficient consumption of these importants inputs to a happy and productive citizenry.
For most roads, we do not charge for access. To the exent that people use what they need and there is not overcrowding, that is to say traffic congestion, this is fine. However, a perverse phenomenon occurs when there is a traffic jam. The value of the road to our commerce dramatically diminishes. People have longer commutes to and from work. Deliveries of goods are slowed, raising costs. Traffic engineers tell me that a slight overloading can produce a disproportionate slowdown in traffic speeds and thus a sigificant degradation to our commerce. Certain East Asian cities, like Bangkok and Jakarta, are famous for their debilitating daily traffic jams. Singapore has avoided this by putting tolls for access to the downtown area, which has been very successful. London has started trying that. Here, that would be the choice of the cities. Therefore, the Finance Ministry, still wanting to improve our commerce by removing the obstacles and inefficiencies, looked for an alternative. Overly large vehicles that transport few people obviously contribute to the problem. They are stealing time and money from all of us just as surely as the shortweighting or sawdust using bakery would. There were other considerations brought to my attention, but that and excessive pollution per passenger mile were the primary reasons for my decision to approve the regulation that the Ministry developed after a public comment period and further analysis.
Woody nods to the bench.
"Justice Clay, your question, if I understand it correctly, appears to personalize the activity of the Finance Ministry in the Finance Minister. I would prefer it said that I approved the implementation of regulations developed by the Ministry through a consultative process, in which the public at large was requested to provide their input. I will restrict my response to the part of the regulation in question, not the portion regarding seatbelts.
One of the duties of the Finance Ministry is to regulate domestic and foreign commerce of the nation. We have, in general, a market economy. For most goods and services, this works best. But its proper functioning requires certain regulations. Market economies work well in countries were contracts are honored. This is a benefit that the justice system has provided our country, for which I thank you. But other features are needed as well. The essence of a market economy is comparison shopping. If you go into a grocery store to buy a one pound loaf of bread, you don't want to have to weigh each one to make sure it is a pound. That is inefficient, and costs the consumer time. You don't want to find out after you are out on a picnic or have your children find out at school lunchtime that the bakery mixed sawdust in with the flour. If that unregulated competition is allowed to exist, it makes our economy much less efficient.
Some goods and services are not priced. We don't pay for the air we breathe. We don't pay for public education up through high school. We don't pay for health care. That is because we have decided that people need air, primary and secondary education, and health care, and if we charged for them, our nation would be worse off because there might be insufficient consumption of these importants inputs to a happy and productive citizenry.
For most roads, we do not charge for access. To the exent that people use what they need and there is not overcrowding, that is to say traffic congestion, this is fine. However, a perverse phenomenon occurs when there is a traffic jam. The value of the road to our commerce dramatically diminishes. People have longer commutes to and from work. Deliveries of goods are slowed, raising costs. Traffic engineers tell me that a slight overloading can produce a disproportionate slowdown in traffic speeds and thus a sigificant degradation to our commerce. Certain East Asian cities, like Bangkok and Jakarta, are famous for their debilitating daily traffic jams. Singapore has avoided this by putting tolls for access to the downtown area, which has been very successful. London has started trying that. Here, that would be the choice of the cities. Therefore, the Finance Ministry, still wanting to improve our commerce by removing the obstacles and inefficiencies, looked for an alternative. Overly large vehicles that transport few people obviously contribute to the problem. They are stealing time and money from all of us just as surely as the shortweighting or sawdust using bakery would. There were other considerations brought to my attention, but that and excessive pollution per passenger mile were the primary reasons for my decision to approve the regulation that the Ministry developed after a public comment period and further analysis.
Murmurs rush through the crowd as, in a shocking breach of court ettiquette, the clerk walks over to the Chief Justice and whispers something. The CJ goes pale, and slams down her gavel. "Adjourned until further notice."
Last edited by a moderator:
Justice Clay studies the proffered document for a moment. "It's just a formality, Per Glasser, but that's what we're here for." She holds it out. "I'm going to need your signature as well."
"Thank you, Dr. Glasser." Clay then turns to her fellow Justices, and they quickly produce a document:
This document serves to record compliance with Article II.2.a. of the motion to remove President Colin Leary from his position due to absence. Said motion reflects the signatures of Vice President Glasser and Ministers Braxton and Asre.
The office of the President being held vacant, in accordance with Article II.2.c. of the Constitution, Vice President Glasser is elevated to the position of President of the Republic.
Opinion of the High Court
This document serves to record compliance with Article II.2.a. of the motion to remove President Colin Leary from his position due to absence. Said motion reflects the signatures of Vice President Glasser and Ministers Braxton and Asre.
The office of the President being held vacant, in accordance with Article II.2.c. of the Constitution, Vice President Glasser is elevated to the position of President of the Republic.
Thank you for your quick action. I have one more document here
*Glasser hands Clay another document similar to the one he handed in earlier, only this time with just his signature on it.*
I am using my power of the Presidency to remove Minister Alan Jones from the Ministry of Finance due to his absence from the office.
Thank you and good day.
*Glasser hands Clay another document similar to the one he handed in earlier, only this time with just his signature on it.*
I am using my power of the Presidency to remove Minister Alan Jones from the Ministry of Finance due to his absence from the office.
Thank you and good day.
The Court files the necessary paperwork indicating that President Glasser has complied with the requirements of the Constitution in removing a cabinet official.
By Order of the High Court
Counsel for Per Al'Sahwari, petitioner in the case Al'Sahwari v. Minister of Finance, shall have 7 days from the issuing of this order to appear for oral argument. Should Counsel fail to do so, this suit shall be dismissed with prejudice.
- Marcos, J. per curia.
