GA response to SL attempts to prevent seccessions

cthia wrote:

PeterZ wrote:There is an important distinction I think needs to be explored.

If the SEM is acting as if in a state of war and has begun the legal internal processes needed to prosecute a war, does the SLN need to itself formally declare war whether or not the SEM/GA formally declares war? In that circumstance the SL federal government may be able to call on emergency powers to fend off the aggressor SEM.

The logic of it all stems from the wording of the SL Constitution. If the war powers stem from the SL declaring war and only then, the Mandarins are screwed.

If the war powers stem from an SL declaration of war or war being declared by any other opponent against the SL, they have wiggle room.

If however, a state of conflict arises but no declaration made by or given to the Solarian League, does the Constitution allow the federal government to use its war powers? My working assumption is that the SL Constitution does not so allow. It needs a formal declaration of war to be made by or against the SL.

Under this circumstance, it doesn't matter what the SEM did as a response to the SL invasion....attempted invasion of its home system. It doesn't matter so long as no formal declaration against the League was made by the SEM. In the SEM's internal processes, it simply declares war on the Masen Alignment. Every bit of Solarian League active military hostilities can be linked to that entity's hostility to the SEM and Haven.....even the SL.

Hence my speculation. Fighting the SL simply stems from the RoH's and SEM's war against the MAlign, not against the SL. That the SL continues to attack the GA can be effectively portrayed as a bunch of bunnies trying to gnaw an irish wolfhound to death. The wolfhound is busy looking for wolves attacking his flock, the bunnies are just a nuisance. Swat, swat, bite, bite and the issue is no longer a nuisance. Now, where are those wolves?

If I am correct, someone in Beowulf would have advised against offering a formal declaration against the League. The de facto state Honor describes is insufficient to trigger the granting of the war powers by the Constitution.

This is where I was trying to lead the conversation from the outset of my very first post opening this can of worms. I oftentimes have to pull teeth.

Kudos Peter.

Yet, the law isn't always clear-cut. There is a such thing to consider called "intent of the law."

Remember, we must consider that when the last revision of the Constitution was inked, no one in their right mind thought there'd be such an enemy that was stupid enough to challenge the League. Hence, perhaps no wording to that effect.

I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the intent of the Constitution was to prevent the League from protecting itself from any perceived threat. Up to an including any emergency preemptive strikes if it indeed deems such an attack is imperative.

The effectiveness of a law is found in its purpose and intent rather than the letter.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.

U.S. Constitutional law

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically divided on the "Letter versus Spirit" debate. For example, at the founding, the Federalist Party argued for a looser interpretation of the Constitution, granting Congress broad powers in keeping with the spirit of the broader purpose of some founders (notably including the Federalist founders' purposes). The Federalists would have represented the "spirit" aspect. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, who favored a limited federal government, argued for the strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that the federal government was granted only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing not explicitly stated; they represented the "letter" interpretation.

Modern Constitutional interpretation also divides on these lines. Currently, Living Constitution scholars advocate a "spirit"-esque interpretative strategy, although one grounded in a spirit that reflects broad powers. Originalist or Textualist scholars advocate a more "letter"-based approach, arguing that the Amendment process of the Constitution necessarily forecloses broader interpretations that can be accomplished simply by passing an amendment.

cthia wrote:

Duckk wrote:Don't be obtuse. The act of declaring an emergency unlocks certain executive powers that would normally not be available otherwise. It's a required procedural element to make subsequent actions legal. For instance, suspension of habeas corpus can only be done during a state of emergency. And since the Mandarins have tried so very hard to make it seem like "business as usual", no such declaration has been made, so any attempt to trample the nominal peacetime rights of sovereign systems is going to pretty quickly alarm others who don't buy into the Mandarin's version of events. Because that's open and shut illegal.

LOL Second time this week I've been called obtuse. No more playing Charades with a bunch of teenage girls. LOL

Glad you brought that up. It was an interesting topic of conversation amongst friends and I over a decade ago.

On Oct. 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

"What, Really, a Time of Shame this is..."

To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system.

What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."

But it Was Not the First Time

In fact, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was not the first time in the history of the U.S. Constitution that its guaranteed right to writs of habeas corpus has been suspended by an action of the President of the United States. In the early days of the U.S. Civil War President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. Both presidents based their action on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many believed to be an attack on the Constitution. There were, however, both similarities and differences between the actions of Presidents Bush and Lincoln.

The League has a right to act to defend itself of any perceived threat. The actions may have to fit the threat. I was never saying that I believe that the League can get away with it. But that precedents are nothing new. Especially facing the threat of war and annihilation.

.

Jonathan_S wrote:That seems more a support a Duckk's point. after both the House and Senate worked together to create and pass enabling legislation the President was able to sign it and using the emergency powers defined in that legislation temporary override normal constitutional protections.

For the League the equivalent would be for their assembly to pass a law (requires unanimous acceptance) either declaring war and defining war emergency powers -or- declaring a state of emergency and defining emergency powers. But this is the procedural step that Ducck pointed out that they haven't done.

The Mandarins simply haven't asked for emergency powers (that we've seen) and don't appear to have authority to unilaterally declare a state if emergency; like the Lincoln and Bush did they seem to have to first get enabling legislation.

cthia wrote:The procedural step is but an issue that might be able to be circumvented by precedence. No one has ever had the gorilla's balls, therefore the gorilla's [C c]onstitution in its hands. Precedence and spirit of the Constitution together are powerful concepts.

Weird Harold wrote:

cthia wrote:The procedural step is but an issue that might be able to be circumvented by precedence. No one has ever had the gorilla's balls, therefore the gorilla's [C c]onstitution in its hands. Precedence and spirit of the Constitution together are powerful concepts.

I think the example of the "Mayhew Restoration" in Grayson applies here. The Keys argued that centuries of precedence over-ruled the written Constitution; the Courts disagreed with them.

The League is in a similar situation where the Mandarins can claim precedence (or lack of precedence) over-rules the Constitution. Since RFC controls the judiciary in the Honorverse, we can make an educated guess at what the Solarian courts will rule.

fallsfromtrees wrote:...Since RFC controls the judiciary ...

Weird Harold wrote:

cthia wrote:The procedural step is but an issue that might be able to be circumvented by precedence. No one has ever had the gorilla's balls, therefore the gorilla's [C c]onstitution in its hands. Precedence and spirit of the Constitution together are powerful concepts.

I think the example of the "Mayhew Restoration" in Grayson applies here. The Keys argued that centuries of precedence over-ruled the written Constitution; the Courts disagreed with them.

The League is in a similar situation where the Mandarins can claim precedence (or lack of precedence) over-rules the Constitution. Since RFC controls the judiciary in the Honorverse, we can make an educated guess at what the Solarian courts will rule.

munroburton wrote:The Mandarins' authority is dropping like a rock. I think it's far more likely there will eventually be attempts to remove them. Possibly a Restoration as above, a "Colonels' coup" or most likely in my opinion, Mesan assassins. By then it will be too late and will simply add to the confusion.

Weird Harold wrote:

cthia wrote:The procedural step is but an issue that might be able to be circumvented by precedence. No one has ever had the gorilla's balls, therefore the gorilla's [C c]onstitution in its hands. Precedence and spirit of the Constitution together are powerful concepts.

I think the example of the "Mayhew Restoration" in Grayson applies here. The Keys argued that centuries of precedence over-ruled the written Constitution; the Courts disagreed with them.

The League is in a similar situation where the Mandarins can claim precedence (or lack of precedence) over-rules the Constitution. Since RFC controls the judiciary in the Honorverse, we can make an educated guess at what the Solarian courts will rule.

fallsfromtrees wrote:No we can make an educated guess how the Grayson court would rule. Given the corruption endemic in the SL, there is no way to predict how Solarian courts would rule.

kzt wrote:

munroburton wrote:The Mandarins' authority is dropping like a rock. I think it's far more likely there will eventually be attempts to remove them. Possibly a Restoration as above, a "Colonels' coup" or most likely in my opinion, Mesan assassins. By then it will be too late and will simply add to the confusion.

I could easily see a SL marine led coup that essentially shoots the top 2-3 tiers of the bureaucracy as being hopeless corrupt and puts someone in place who intends to fix things. This would likely not be good for the SEM...