IN THE HIGH COURT OF EUTOPIA
Mr. J. Blade, Mr. J. Vulture, Mr. J. Krunch Sitting in Eutopia City
---------------------
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PREVENTION AND JUDGMENT
---------------------
Edward H. Bogle, Esq.
Solicitor General of Eutopia
---------------------
I. Question presented.
The sole question presented by this petition is, in the absence of a direct Constitutional provision, who shall assume the office of President in the event that the Presidency is permanently vacated, and by what means he shall be chosen.
II. Jurisdictional statements.
The jurisdiction of this High Court is invoked under the Constitution of Eutopia (2002), which in part provides: "the High Court is to "ensure that the Constitution is respected by the state's institutions." It is recognized that the High Court alone is vested with the proper authority to determine the line of Presidential succession in this matter.
The instant petition is a Writ of Prevention. The Solicitor General, in anticipation of any litigation, dispute, or further action on the question here presented, and quia timet any uncertainty in the law on this matter, hereby invokes the equitable authority of this High Court to render judgment and settle the matter.
III. Constitutional provisions involved.
The Constitution provides that: "One of the Ministers is designated Vice-President by the President and fulfills the President’s functions if and while the latter is absent." It is silent on whether or not the Vice President is to permanently assume the office, or merely carry out the President's duties until such time as a new election may be held.
IV. Statement of facts.
On January 27, 2003, President Jacob Lundgren resigned, specifically citing health problems which rendered him unfit to devote the appropriate time and energies to his duties as President of Eutopia. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Murmurandus, current Vice President and Minister of Heritage and Social Affairs, assumed the duties of President. The current status of all three of these offices -- President, Vice President, and MHSA -- is unknown.
V. Summary of argument.
Based on our constitutional law, our national customs, and our democratic traditions, there are three possible ways to proceed in the absence of a clear constitutional mandate: (1) a new direct, general election; (2) permanent assumption of the presidency by Vice President; or (3) Parliamentary election of a new President. It is the opinion of the Solicitor General that the third option best balances our constitution with the needs of effective, democratic governance.
VI. Argument.
A. Direct election of a new President.
The calling of a new direct general election to fill the office of President is the least desirable possibility. This option is the most time consuming, requiring a renewed period of campaigning, another extended voting period, time to count the votes, and finally the official installation of a President. Judging the amount of time this will take, a new President will be sworn into office just as his term ends. It is likewise an economic drain on the political parties which make up our system, as well as the system itself.
B. Permanent assumption of the office by the Vice President.
The permanent transfer of the presidency to the Vice President is likewise an undesirable outcome. The Vice President is not a democratically elected official. He is appointed, without review by Parliament or electorate, at the sole discretion of the President. To allow him to assume the office of the President without acknowledgement of the sovereignty or supreme decision-making authority of the people is repugnant to a democratic state. This shift in office-holders would give the supreme executive authority to an officer who could, a mere day before, be dismissed at the pleasure of the President, without exception. The new President would not be answerable to any power in the government. The sole advantage of such a succession is its speed and decisiveness. These two, however, are not virtues of a democratic state, and such convenience is the low road to totalitarianism.
C. Parliamentary selection of a new President.
The selection of a new President by Parliament best balances all concerns: speed, accountability, effective governance, and legality. Parliament would select a new president, either by majority vote or 2/3 supermajority vote. Candidates for the office would be required only to meet the constitutional requirements for the office. This option would also fit with the past precedent. Under our previous constitutional arrangements, it fell within the purview of Parliament to disapprove the accession of a monarch if necessary, as it is in Britain. Our modern President is the successor to the executive authority of the monarch. If this custom is to be followed, therefore, Parliament shall select a new President, and the Vice President will merely administer the government in the interregenum. This option also meets our democratic requirements. Parliament represents the makeup of the electorate, and thus any choice made by them is as made by the people themselves. Our traditions, laws, as well as the needs of a modern state, dictate that the choice of a new President is to be made by Parliament as soon as possible.
VII. Conclusion.
This High Court should issue an authoritative decision on the method by which a new President will be chosen.
Edward H. Bogle, Esq.
Solicitor General of Eutopia
Mr. J. Blade, Mr. J. Vulture, Mr. J. Krunch Sitting in Eutopia City
---------------------
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PREVENTION AND JUDGMENT
---------------------
Edward H. Bogle, Esq.
Solicitor General of Eutopia
---------------------
I. Question presented.
The sole question presented by this petition is, in the absence of a direct Constitutional provision, who shall assume the office of President in the event that the Presidency is permanently vacated, and by what means he shall be chosen.
II. Jurisdictional statements.
The jurisdiction of this High Court is invoked under the Constitution of Eutopia (2002), which in part provides: "the High Court is to "ensure that the Constitution is respected by the state's institutions." It is recognized that the High Court alone is vested with the proper authority to determine the line of Presidential succession in this matter.
The instant petition is a Writ of Prevention. The Solicitor General, in anticipation of any litigation, dispute, or further action on the question here presented, and quia timet any uncertainty in the law on this matter, hereby invokes the equitable authority of this High Court to render judgment and settle the matter.
III. Constitutional provisions involved.
The Constitution provides that: "One of the Ministers is designated Vice-President by the President and fulfills the President’s functions if and while the latter is absent." It is silent on whether or not the Vice President is to permanently assume the office, or merely carry out the President's duties until such time as a new election may be held.
IV. Statement of facts.
On January 27, 2003, President Jacob Lundgren resigned, specifically citing health problems which rendered him unfit to devote the appropriate time and energies to his duties as President of Eutopia. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Murmurandus, current Vice President and Minister of Heritage and Social Affairs, assumed the duties of President. The current status of all three of these offices -- President, Vice President, and MHSA -- is unknown.
V. Summary of argument.
Based on our constitutional law, our national customs, and our democratic traditions, there are three possible ways to proceed in the absence of a clear constitutional mandate: (1) a new direct, general election; (2) permanent assumption of the presidency by Vice President; or (3) Parliamentary election of a new President. It is the opinion of the Solicitor General that the third option best balances our constitution with the needs of effective, democratic governance.
VI. Argument.
A. Direct election of a new President.
The calling of a new direct general election to fill the office of President is the least desirable possibility. This option is the most time consuming, requiring a renewed period of campaigning, another extended voting period, time to count the votes, and finally the official installation of a President. Judging the amount of time this will take, a new President will be sworn into office just as his term ends. It is likewise an economic drain on the political parties which make up our system, as well as the system itself.
B. Permanent assumption of the office by the Vice President.
The permanent transfer of the presidency to the Vice President is likewise an undesirable outcome. The Vice President is not a democratically elected official. He is appointed, without review by Parliament or electorate, at the sole discretion of the President. To allow him to assume the office of the President without acknowledgement of the sovereignty or supreme decision-making authority of the people is repugnant to a democratic state. This shift in office-holders would give the supreme executive authority to an officer who could, a mere day before, be dismissed at the pleasure of the President, without exception. The new President would not be answerable to any power in the government. The sole advantage of such a succession is its speed and decisiveness. These two, however, are not virtues of a democratic state, and such convenience is the low road to totalitarianism.
C. Parliamentary selection of a new President.
The selection of a new President by Parliament best balances all concerns: speed, accountability, effective governance, and legality. Parliament would select a new president, either by majority vote or 2/3 supermajority vote. Candidates for the office would be required only to meet the constitutional requirements for the office. This option would also fit with the past precedent. Under our previous constitutional arrangements, it fell within the purview of Parliament to disapprove the accession of a monarch if necessary, as it is in Britain. Our modern President is the successor to the executive authority of the monarch. If this custom is to be followed, therefore, Parliament shall select a new President, and the Vice President will merely administer the government in the interregenum. This option also meets our democratic requirements. Parliament represents the makeup of the electorate, and thus any choice made by them is as made by the people themselves. Our traditions, laws, as well as the needs of a modern state, dictate that the choice of a new President is to be made by Parliament as soon as possible.
VII. Conclusion.
This High Court should issue an authoritative decision on the method by which a new President will be chosen.
Edward H. Bogle, Esq.
Solicitor General of Eutopia
Last edited:
I think there may be a fourth option to consider: the runner-up in the presidential election could take over. A potential fifth option might be to follow the protocolary rank of elected officials, in which case the Speaker of Parliament would be next in line. Not that I'd be in favour of either of these two, but they are possibilities. 
