Formal complaint to the Supreme Court
•
by Michel Junior
Since Cottus sold the Goverment Q3 weapon company after being elected without consulting this with his cabinet or getting this action being voted by congress there have been many question raise on this with little answer provided to the public. Now on the eCanada forum this discution has been going no where because the same extract of the constitution could be interpretaded in two different ways and the language was starting to deterioate.
We have a Supreme court who job is to rule on situation exactly like this.And someone said the the mayors didn't have any real power.
I would like to fill a formal complaint to the supreme court to juge if Cottus Arci acted in accordance with the Contitution like he claim or againts like some of us believe.
This is the only way we can put this issued to rest and Cottus can go back to ruling with the full confindance of eCanadian.
Extract from the constitution
Membership
into Supreme Court: The Supreme Court of Canada shall be defined as the
judicators of the law and guardians of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court is to consist of the mayors of each province, and shall hear and
render judgment upon issues between in differing areas of the country,
matters referred to them by the Speaker of the House of Commons,
Matters referred to them by the President, matters of appeal, and
constitutional amendments passed by Parliament and the Presidency. In
all matters but that of Constitutional amendments, a simple majority of
votes is needed from no less than mayors in total to be declared valid
and lawful. In the event of a Constitutional Amendment, such a bill
requires the consent of 50% +1 of all members in order to pass.
eCanada has tool to work this out and not using them serve no one.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
\"there have been many question raise on this with little answer provided to the public\"
Really, I\'ve yet to recieve a single PM about it! There\'s been discussion on it on eCanada (1 thread as far as I can see) and I answered it quoting the Constitution.
\"The power to access and control any Governmental assets including but not limited to Crown Corporations, Government S.O.s and off-site forums in the interest of enacting the Government’s policies and providing Presidential oversight over the activities of Cabinet Ministers, so long as these actions do not violate the Articles of Allegiance.\"
I created 2 x Govt Trainers, without Cabinet/Congress approval... why aren\'t you complaining about that?
That extract of the constitution talk about access and control of goverment assets, Not the purchase or sell of Governmental assets.
As for the 2 Q1 trainers I I have to say I had no idee you had already purchase these, because I miss the part talking about this in Day 2 progress report. I thaught this was simply an Item on the agenda and not something already done. There has been not advertising of these new company as far as I can tell so the public don\'t know there names to applied for a job there.
We have ask simple question like how much did you sell it for, why was did not aution off and you simply answer I\'m king because of this extract of the constitution and I can do what I want and not answer these simple question.
I didn\'t PM you because I wanted a public debate on this issued to show more transparency from the goverment because I believe in that.
You say that this grant you all the right to do what you want with the goverment asset and I say it doen\'t
Lets make the Supreme Juge decide who is right.
I\'ll bring Congress to refer it to the Supreme Court. Not because I want to piss Cottus off for once, but because a) Michel has filed a complaint and as a Canadian citizen he deserves his grievances to be properly addressed, b) this has become an issue that has become deadlocked, and c) this part of the constitution is ambigious and needs to be clarified.
If part of the constitution is ambiguous here, we\'ll probably want to make an ammendment to the constitution while we\'re at it... Not only that, but it\'s the 5th which means that someone has to make the vote for the new Speaker. This might be a busy day.
Thank you Augustus, Those where the same reason I was bring this up but I didn\'t pharse it that well.
We don\'t need an amendment, thats what the Supreme Court is for, it can interpret the issue and then that is binding
Good, wasn\'t entirely clear on that. Less work for me, then.
As the drafter of the constitution, I must make my opinion known:
\"Presidential powers: The power to enact policy decisions by means of Executive Orders, so long as they do not violate the Articles of Allegiance.\"
What Cottus did qualifies as an executive order. This is no different than Paul Martin\'s merging of the various Foreign Affairs departments and sub-departments in 2004-2005. It is legal. Should Cottus wish to resolve the issue quickly, he may put the issue to Congress for debate in one of eCanada\'s few legal methods of retroactive legislation, but that is entirely up to him. The executive order is designed to ensure that the government can work quickly and effectively on measures that reequire immediate action. While this particular action may not have been the most urgent, it still falls within the realm of an Executive Order.
But sadly it does in some way violate the Atricle of Allegiance if it doesn\'t repect all the previous article like I believe it doesn\'t.
Paul Martin could indeed restructure the different ministry but he can\'t privitize thing without the approval of the house of common. Budget need approving also, you can spend any state money without it first being approve by the house of common. I believe his action fall in those same line and are contrary to some of the article of the contitution and therefore contrary to the Articles of Allegiance.
I will build my case on this and I ask anyone that is not part of the goverment in anyway that would like to help me to PM me. I do not want there to be any conflict of interess in this matter.
Look guys I\'m not out to get Cottus on some weird vendetta to ruin his reputation.
Right now we got a good president and I know that it is not in his intention to bankrup eCanada by emptying the entire tresaury. We have a constitution to protect us from this. Now if it within the power of the President to do what ever he want with the canadian money and gold, then what is the constitution for.
I want this situation clear up by our judicary system so that if by some bad luck we end up with a President like they had in Norway that walk out with all the gold we will have thing in place to force the admin to intervine.
We elected Cottus because we believe he is the personne most fitting to represent the people of eCanada and able to follow the constitution.
Why do constitution always have to use big words that can be interpreated in more then two ways. Could we simply say you can do this and not this.
This was not a matter of removing money from the treasury, or reallocating it; it was a matter of creating revenue for the government by selling off a bad investment that I initiated back in June.
Furthermore, the previous budget allocated \"8573.56 CAD held in reserve within Ministry of Finance for emergency spending, Training Subsidies or additional funding requirements.\"
With the previous budget in effect, the reallocation of spending commitments is not in fact a conflict of interest, but an extention of current policy programs in place designed to ease the transition to power of the next government.
Given the fact that the Canadian Government accumulated 264 Gold in the past month, which had not been allocated to any budgetary requirement, be it spending, investment, or reserved; this Gold should be see in the same light as the CAD within the Ministry of Finance which was used to buy it: \"held in reserve within Ministry of Finance for emergency spending, Training Subsidies or ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.\"
All caps added for emphasis.
England Prevails!
A Constitution is a living document, meaning it is interpreted based on contemporary opinion and not the opinion of the drafter. So whatever Adam intended it to say, the Supreme Court may interpret it in the best interests of the country so long as that interpretation remains within the language of the article.
Michel Junior brought up a proper complaint. And due process is called for.
The complaint will be heard here:
http://ecanada.forumotion.co.uk/canadian-discussion-f3/supreme-court-of-canada-case-1-05-09-2008-michel-junior-v-rex-t315.htm#3101
Yay wingin\' it!
im with cottus. Control over government assets includes the sale of them if he feels its right.
So i have power? Woho! xD
It is customary for the Supreme Court to hear testimony from Friends of the Court; and as the drafter of the Contsitution, in terms of interpreting intent, I qualify as a Friend of the Court.
Adam I have no objection of you speaking in court. You will need Cottus approval since he represent the other party involve. I will PM you this so you may participate in the proceeding once you get the OK from Cottus.
My intent in my complaint was so we could clairified some of the thing in the constituion and also to make my fellow eCanadian understand more about the structure and rules governing our land. I was suprise at how many mayor didn\'t even know they where part of the supreme court.
Actually Adam, a \"friend of the court\" does not work like that. A \"friend of the court\" is generally someone who will be directly impacted by a supreme court decision and thus their interests deserve to be represented. In this particular constitutional matter there is no one who qualifies as such (as traditionally only a sitting attorney general would qualify). Anyone can apply to the court to be heard, but your testimony would have to be approved by a majority vote of the Court (the court has discretion). But regardless, we are well into judgments already and I don\'t think adding new testimony now would be practical or possible.