"I would like to take the oppertunity to ask Justice Marcos a question please. Justice Marcos, what is definition of murder?"
-
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.
"Patethicness isn't either. I want to know Justice Marcos's definition of murder."unclebryan said:
"Admiral, please put dentures back firmly in your mouth before you try something complicated like a rejoinder or verbal riposte. 'Patethicness' doesn't seem to be a word, unless it a measure of how you want the upscale caterer to slice your fois gras? Did you mean 'pathetic' or 'being pathetic', presumably in the second sense of the word...
Woody glances at his digital PDA and reads
"...'arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity'.
As to it being a defense, that implies a criminal prosecution. We know what you have been charged with. Are you accusing me of something criminal? Or just of being annoying? That isn't a crime yet. You are from the biggest party, so perhaps you can make it one. Fortunately, such a law wouldn't be retroactive, so I could reform, if needed, without any criminal record, Mr. Warmonger."
Woody glances at his digital PDA and reads
"...'arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity'.
As to it being a defense, that implies a criminal prosecution. We know what you have been charged with. Are you accusing me of something criminal? Or just of being annoying? That isn't a crime yet. You are from the biggest party, so perhaps you can make it one. Fortunately, such a law wouldn't be retroactive, so I could reform, if needed, without any criminal record, Mr. Warmonger."
"HA! Yes Per Park I do think you are being pathetic, in the sense of the word that you are just sad. If you are accusing me of murder because of the Hainan Star affair then you are just firing cheap shots. Furthermore, I do not want to know the Justices definition because I was in charge of the Task Force attacking the HS. I have my own reasons."
Catching what he thinks might be a motion from the speaker to raise his gavel, Woody thinks the better of his recent remarks, and says,
"I am sorry, Admiral and fellow members of the GA, my remarks were out of order, and detracted from our present purpose, for which I apologize.
I would like to ask Justice Marcos, after she has dealt with the prior questions, what her opinion is of the minority opinion rendered by the person she is nominated to replace, regarding the Leary v. Lundgren, whether Leary resorted to the courts too precipitously, and whether as a judge, she can imagine circumstances in which she would see fit to intervene in the adminstration of the General Assembly, under its present arrangement?"
"I am sorry, Admiral and fellow members of the GA, my remarks were out of order, and detracted from our present purpose, for which I apologize.
I would like to ask Justice Marcos, after she has dealt with the prior questions, what her opinion is of the minority opinion rendered by the person she is nominated to replace, regarding the Leary v. Lundgren, whether Leary resorted to the courts too precipitously, and whether as a judge, she can imagine circumstances in which she would see fit to intervene in the adminstration of the General Assembly, under its present arrangement?"
"If I may interject a moment, gentlemen" Marcos' voice rings across the assemblyhall through the PA system, with just enough force to immediately calm the entire room "I was under the impression that I was on trial here, and not Admiral Tulp." She smiles, and there are some soft chuckles throughout the assembly.
"Per Park, I thank you for your concern, but I believe I can handle myself. I will answer your scenarios as best I can briefly, though each could easily be the subject of a 50 page judicial memo, or an essay test of somewhat smaller stature. In so doing, I will only apply our current Constitution, as to do otherwise would be a quaint history lesson, but a waste of this body's time. I can only give general answers, because a full opinion would require some research into precedent and a full set of facts and circumstances which you can't hope to provide in a concise format. Each case is different, but I can give you a general opinion.
Your first question poses a situation where a minister acts outside of his portfolio to the economic damage of another, who then sues to recover their damages. If a minister could not make a valid Constitutional argument for why the tariff falls under their responsibility, then the tariff would be void and the foreign lumber company would be entitled to compensation. However, under our current Constitution, both the Finance Minister and the President would have valid standings to enact such tariffs, as they can be considered part of 'foreign policy'.
Next, there is Amric Al'Aeshir. Despite Per Al'Aeshir's clearly discriminatory practice in selling his property only to foreign bidders, he is still a private actor. Were AAH a government agency, then the circumstances would be different, but as it is there is no 'state action' on which to base a Constitutional claim. It is the right of private citizens to sell their property to whomever they please in such a case, and the High Court cannot force Per Al'Aeshir to do otherwise.
As for Admiral Tulp, Courts Martial are not my area of expertise, nor are they a civilian court's jurisdiction. I would certainly not allow a civilian prosecutor to file followup charges or continue a Court Martial after Per Tulp's was suspended. Under our current Constitution, it would be outside of the President's authority to grant a pardon or commute a sentence, but as Commander-in-Chief it is his responsibility to ensure the security of our borders. As I understand, Per Tulp's situation was extraordinary, in that his trial was suspended during wartime. To initiate a new Court Martial is the prerogative of the President as Commander-in-Chief or of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or if farther down the line, a similarly situated officer. It is not the place of a High Court justice. A civilian court could hear any civil suits filed against him by victims, but not his criminal case, as that is solely the province of a Court Martial.
As for why the President chose me, that is a question better directed at him. I assume he did so because I struck him as the best choice. I have no information about his pecadillos or anything else of his, having just recently met the man, and would never consent to any sort of arrangement on my future rulings." She leans back and takes another drink of water, then rolls her neck a little before leaning forward into the microphone again.
"As for Admiral Tulp's question defining murder, that is trickier than you think, I believe. Ask that question to any first year law student, and their response will be 'what degree?' The act of killing someone is not always murder...it can be manslaughter, or there are multiple degrees, etc. The simple answer to your question is, under our Criminal Code, murder is defined as 'when one person engages in conduct which results in the death of another person, and the first person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the other person by the conduct.' Note that the person charged with murder does not actually have to kill the victim by pulling the trigger or what-have-you...directing others to do the actual killing is 'engaging in conduct'. That criminal code can of course be amended by this body through a simple majority vote. Our Constitution does not define murder except in the nature of the 'right to life', which if I perceive your line of questioning correctly, does not currently apply to executions or abortions. To change the Constitution's definition there would require a Constitutional amendment be passed by this body; and without the over-arching guide of the Constitution in place, I imagine that both the death penalty and abortion would fit within our criminal code's definition of murder.
Finally, Reverend Park's question concerning Leary v. Lundgren. While I believe that all avenues of extrajudicial resolution should be pursued before filing suit, I recognize that to do so is not always possible or even advisable. I do not see the harm in issuing advisory opinions that the late Justice Onazaker saw, and had I my choice I would have joined the majority opinion. As for whether I would intervene in the administration of the General Assembly at present, I believe I could imagine such circumstances, but they would have to be of such an unconscionable nature as to render their likelihood of occurring very low, such as a flagrant abuse of power by the Speaker to censor debate. Even then, suit would have to be brought before the High Court before we could rule...I am loathe to stick the nose of the Court where it does not belong, and certainly would not take the Court anywhere uninvited."
"Per Park, I thank you for your concern, but I believe I can handle myself. I will answer your scenarios as best I can briefly, though each could easily be the subject of a 50 page judicial memo, or an essay test of somewhat smaller stature. In so doing, I will only apply our current Constitution, as to do otherwise would be a quaint history lesson, but a waste of this body's time. I can only give general answers, because a full opinion would require some research into precedent and a full set of facts and circumstances which you can't hope to provide in a concise format. Each case is different, but I can give you a general opinion.
Your first question poses a situation where a minister acts outside of his portfolio to the economic damage of another, who then sues to recover their damages. If a minister could not make a valid Constitutional argument for why the tariff falls under their responsibility, then the tariff would be void and the foreign lumber company would be entitled to compensation. However, under our current Constitution, both the Finance Minister and the President would have valid standings to enact such tariffs, as they can be considered part of 'foreign policy'.
Next, there is Amric Al'Aeshir. Despite Per Al'Aeshir's clearly discriminatory practice in selling his property only to foreign bidders, he is still a private actor. Were AAH a government agency, then the circumstances would be different, but as it is there is no 'state action' on which to base a Constitutional claim. It is the right of private citizens to sell their property to whomever they please in such a case, and the High Court cannot force Per Al'Aeshir to do otherwise.
As for Admiral Tulp, Courts Martial are not my area of expertise, nor are they a civilian court's jurisdiction. I would certainly not allow a civilian prosecutor to file followup charges or continue a Court Martial after Per Tulp's was suspended. Under our current Constitution, it would be outside of the President's authority to grant a pardon or commute a sentence, but as Commander-in-Chief it is his responsibility to ensure the security of our borders. As I understand, Per Tulp's situation was extraordinary, in that his trial was suspended during wartime. To initiate a new Court Martial is the prerogative of the President as Commander-in-Chief or of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or if farther down the line, a similarly situated officer. It is not the place of a High Court justice. A civilian court could hear any civil suits filed against him by victims, but not his criminal case, as that is solely the province of a Court Martial.
As for why the President chose me, that is a question better directed at him. I assume he did so because I struck him as the best choice. I have no information about his pecadillos or anything else of his, having just recently met the man, and would never consent to any sort of arrangement on my future rulings." She leans back and takes another drink of water, then rolls her neck a little before leaning forward into the microphone again.
"As for Admiral Tulp's question defining murder, that is trickier than you think, I believe. Ask that question to any first year law student, and their response will be 'what degree?' The act of killing someone is not always murder...it can be manslaughter, or there are multiple degrees, etc. The simple answer to your question is, under our Criminal Code, murder is defined as 'when one person engages in conduct which results in the death of another person, and the first person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the other person by the conduct.' Note that the person charged with murder does not actually have to kill the victim by pulling the trigger or what-have-you...directing others to do the actual killing is 'engaging in conduct'. That criminal code can of course be amended by this body through a simple majority vote. Our Constitution does not define murder except in the nature of the 'right to life', which if I perceive your line of questioning correctly, does not currently apply to executions or abortions. To change the Constitution's definition there would require a Constitutional amendment be passed by this body; and without the over-arching guide of the Constitution in place, I imagine that both the death penalty and abortion would fit within our criminal code's definition of murder.
Finally, Reverend Park's question concerning Leary v. Lundgren. While I believe that all avenues of extrajudicial resolution should be pursued before filing suit, I recognize that to do so is not always possible or even advisable. I do not see the harm in issuing advisory opinions that the late Justice Onazaker saw, and had I my choice I would have joined the majority opinion. As for whether I would intervene in the administration of the General Assembly at present, I believe I could imagine such circumstances, but they would have to be of such an unconscionable nature as to render their likelihood of occurring very low, such as a flagrant abuse of power by the Speaker to censor debate. Even then, suit would have to be brought before the High Court before we could rule...I am loathe to stick the nose of the Court where it does not belong, and certainly would not take the Court anywhere uninvited."
Thank-you, Justice Marcos. You have provided enough information for me to make up my mind. I have no further questions.
"Thank-you, judge. I believe my colleagues have done a commendable job 'interrogating' you. From what you have divulged, I will be comfortable making a decision; is that sentiment mutual throughout the body, perhaps?”
"Judge Marcos, thank you for your detailed and forthwright answers. Many members of this body have indicated they are ready to decide, but I'll leave the floor open a short while longer to see if anyone has anything else to add. Of course, you may continue to respond to the existing questionaire."
OOC: Last call.
OOC: Last call.
"I am willing to answer the remaining questions on the lists I was provided, but if the members of this body are satisfied with their questioning already, then I will take up no more of your time."
"The vote has begun for Judge Marcos' appointment to the High Court. Thank you for your time, Judge Marcos." Leary waits for Marcos to respond and leave, along with whatever hoopla follows before continuing.
"Our next order of business is the motion to overrule the President's veto of the Clean Eutopia Act. This bill has been hashed over in public and in these halls, and this body saw fit to pass it 65 - 35. The President helped me craft this bill and promised me personally he would support it and sign it. I know he made similar claims or at least hinted of them to many of you," Leary is now clearly addressing the ENP section. "The President has stated publicly on many occassions that the enviroment is an important issue to him and to his party. Those of you who followed his lead and supported this bill, I commend you. Those of you who voted against this bill, I would urge you to take a second look. We have gone far too long without any enviromental legislation. It is time we took a stand!"
"As I said before, the bill in question has already been extensively debated, so I don't see much debate occurring now, but I'll leave the floor open for a short while."
"Our next order of business is the motion to overrule the President's veto of the Clean Eutopia Act. This bill has been hashed over in public and in these halls, and this body saw fit to pass it 65 - 35. The President helped me craft this bill and promised me personally he would support it and sign it. I know he made similar claims or at least hinted of them to many of you," Leary is now clearly addressing the ENP section. "The President has stated publicly on many occassions that the enviroment is an important issue to him and to his party. Those of you who followed his lead and supported this bill, I commend you. Those of you who voted against this bill, I would urge you to take a second look. We have gone far too long without any enviromental legislation. It is time we took a stand!"
"As I said before, the bill in question has already been extensively debated, so I don't see much debate occurring now, but I'll leave the floor open for a short while."
Point of order! A similar bill has been submitted by the President, presumably to replace the one he vetoed. That bill has been seconded, and is thus somewhere on our agenda. If we were to override the veto and then pass the president's bill, then much of the first bill would be changed. Given the similarity of the two bills, it might be appropriate to combine the debate and timing of the votes. The debate would presumably start, when it comes up, with an address by the President as the proponent of the alternative bill. Say this not because I support the President's bill, but to make it possible to conclude our business here before the upcoming elections.
I thought he was leaving after the Marcos hearing, Leary thinks to himself. "If this body overrides the President's veto, it have overwhelmingly accepted the Clean Eutopia Act. We are all aware of the President's alternative. It is my intention if the CEA passes, to use the authority of the Speaker's chair to dismiss the Enviromental Reform Act as repetitive."
"However, in the name of open discussion, I will allow discussion of the President's alternative to be included in the debate on the motion to override the veto of the CEA. The President is invited to introduce and discuss his bill. I'll even start the discussion."
"I think it stinks."
"However, in the name of open discussion, I will allow discussion of the President's alternative to be included in the debate on the motion to override the veto of the CEA. The President is invited to introduce and discuss his bill. I'll even start the discussion."
"I think it stinks."
“Thank you for your eloquent evaluation, Mr. Leary.
“I vetoed the Clean Eutopia Act because I felt it would have too much an adverse impact on our economy. We must do what we can to preserve the environment for the future, but we cannot destroy our economic future in the process. The Clean Eutopia Act as planned by Mr. Leary and I was not an extreme bill, but I felt it was still too much too soon.
“I do not feel we can suddenly convert our economy into a utopian eco-friendly one. That is simply impossible. The task requires time. As the Eutopian Central Bank reported, the Clean Eutopia Act would have ended the automobile and fishing industries in Eutopia, as well as reduced the selection of foreign import vehicles, as it is unlikely foreign car manufacturers would make the necessary changes just to have their products legal in a small market like Eutopia. These are the primary reasons I was forced to reverse my position on the bill.
“The new bill eliminates the risk of the unemployment increases and significantly lowers the impact on effected companies. All this, and yet it mandates a higher standard than the Clean Eutopia Act did for smokestack emissions. Many of the important dumping clauses of the Clean Eutopia Act were carried over into the Environmental Reform Act. The tax incentives section has been simplified from a measure merely smoothing over the transition to one that encourages companies to comply sooner.
“I expect criticism for the long compliance time. Term XX is about twenty-one years from now. On the grand scale of things, I am afraid any faster is too painful. And arguable relatively unnecessary. This act helps protect our future without hurting the present. That is the only acceptable means of handling the environment.
“Now, being human, I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect. No one is.” Zhokhyen stares directly at the Speaker for a moment before looking back at the rest of the Assembly. “I should have been against the Clean Eutopia Act from the beginning, but I did not look sufficiently into the likely economic results before suggesting I would support it. I made a mistake. My mistake does not change the fact that the Clean Eutopia Act is too invasive and harmful despite its good intentions. I also expect you all will find many mistakes within the Environmental Reform Act. Many areas, such as the tax incentives, I am flexible on. Amendments within reason will likely be accepted. What I cannot accept is too soon a deadline or too harsh standards on certain industries.
“I hope most of you would be willing to forgo the partisan anger that has flared recently, forgive me of my folly in establishing my position on the CEA, and approve this bill. Please, do not discredit it simply because it was penned by me."
“I vetoed the Clean Eutopia Act because I felt it would have too much an adverse impact on our economy. We must do what we can to preserve the environment for the future, but we cannot destroy our economic future in the process. The Clean Eutopia Act as planned by Mr. Leary and I was not an extreme bill, but I felt it was still too much too soon.
“I do not feel we can suddenly convert our economy into a utopian eco-friendly one. That is simply impossible. The task requires time. As the Eutopian Central Bank reported, the Clean Eutopia Act would have ended the automobile and fishing industries in Eutopia, as well as reduced the selection of foreign import vehicles, as it is unlikely foreign car manufacturers would make the necessary changes just to have their products legal in a small market like Eutopia. These are the primary reasons I was forced to reverse my position on the bill.
“The new bill eliminates the risk of the unemployment increases and significantly lowers the impact on effected companies. All this, and yet it mandates a higher standard than the Clean Eutopia Act did for smokestack emissions. Many of the important dumping clauses of the Clean Eutopia Act were carried over into the Environmental Reform Act. The tax incentives section has been simplified from a measure merely smoothing over the transition to one that encourages companies to comply sooner.
“I expect criticism for the long compliance time. Term XX is about twenty-one years from now. On the grand scale of things, I am afraid any faster is too painful. And arguable relatively unnecessary. This act helps protect our future without hurting the present. That is the only acceptable means of handling the environment.
“Now, being human, I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect. No one is.” Zhokhyen stares directly at the Speaker for a moment before looking back at the rest of the Assembly. “I should have been against the Clean Eutopia Act from the beginning, but I did not look sufficiently into the likely economic results before suggesting I would support it. I made a mistake. My mistake does not change the fact that the Clean Eutopia Act is too invasive and harmful despite its good intentions. I also expect you all will find many mistakes within the Environmental Reform Act. Many areas, such as the tax incentives, I am flexible on. Amendments within reason will likely be accepted. What I cannot accept is too soon a deadline or too harsh standards on certain industries.
“I hope most of you would be willing to forgo the partisan anger that has flared recently, forgive me of my folly in establishing my position on the CEA, and approve this bill. Please, do not discredit it simply because it was penned by me."
"Would you agree on a friendly amendment shortening the time from 21 to 19 years?"
HJ Tulp said:
Only if the President doesn't mind flip-flopping again.
Gonzov has his usual smirk on his face
"I would like to formarly protest the behaviour of the Speaker and Per Gonzov. It's insultive and doesn't add anything to the debate."
Zhokhyen ignores Gonzov, having already adressed the "flip-flop".
"I prefer to use Terms in this situation, Admiral. I do not feel one or two years are significant in terms of the environment or the economy. I do feel that one or two terms are. Perhaps lowering all deadlines in the bill by three years, or one term? I tried to be a little generous in the time allotment when I quickly drafted this bill, and it is not unreasonable to shorten it some."
"I prefer to use Terms in this situation, Admiral. I do not feel one or two years are significant in terms of the environment or the economy. I do feel that one or two terms are. Perhaps lowering all deadlines in the bill by three years, or one term? I tried to be a little generous in the time allotment when I quickly drafted this bill, and it is not unreasonable to shorten it some."