- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 242
Our position is clear, Your Honor.
Parliament's vote here was a record of approval or opposition. The Ministry of State directed the final decision. The Plaintiff's contention is irrelevant, given Parliament's vote was legally non-binding. This is not the first time such a non-binding vote has been held, either. The 1st Parliament had several examples, such as: June 17th, 2024, Parliament voted on the Majority Leader’s parliamentary attaché proposals, to indicate MP support / opposition, without it being binding. June 19th, 2024, Parliament voted to request an expansion of the body from the Crown.
Separately, if the court still wishes to rule on the question of whether Parliament *could* issue a deployment - Plaintiff has acknowledged the Ministry of State's authority to deploy the National Guard at will. The Constitution clearly states in Article 2: "The Executive... derives its power directly from the Parliament." Plaintiff's concession on this point is important, because it acknowledges the Executive has this authority, which it got from Parliament. Claiming Parliament can gift authority it does not have is not constitutionally consistent.
Furthermore, Parliament is the legislative branch. Its actions have legislative power, even absent an enabling act. If the court rejects the Defense’s initial argument and insists on interpreting this as a binding vote, then the judiciary should rule in favor of allowing Parliament to exercise its constitutional duty in Article 2: “The Parliament shall… oversee the functioning of the government.”
Thank you, Your Honor.
Parliament's vote here was a record of approval or opposition. The Ministry of State directed the final decision. The Plaintiff's contention is irrelevant, given Parliament's vote was legally non-binding. This is not the first time such a non-binding vote has been held, either. The 1st Parliament had several examples, such as: June 17th, 2024, Parliament voted on the Majority Leader’s parliamentary attaché proposals, to indicate MP support / opposition, without it being binding. June 19th, 2024, Parliament voted to request an expansion of the body from the Crown.
Separately, if the court still wishes to rule on the question of whether Parliament *could* issue a deployment - Plaintiff has acknowledged the Ministry of State's authority to deploy the National Guard at will. The Constitution clearly states in Article 2: "The Executive... derives its power directly from the Parliament." Plaintiff's concession on this point is important, because it acknowledges the Executive has this authority, which it got from Parliament. Claiming Parliament can gift authority it does not have is not constitutionally consistent.
Furthermore, Parliament is the legislative branch. Its actions have legislative power, even absent an enabling act. If the court rejects the Defense’s initial argument and insists on interpreting this as a binding vote, then the judiciary should rule in favor of allowing Parliament to exercise its constitutional duty in Article 2: “The Parliament shall… oversee the functioning of the government.”
Thank you, Your Honor.