GA response to SL attempts to prevent seccessions

PeterZ wrote:A weak local currency benefits only the import element of the OFS run international economy. An artificially weak local currency is awful to invest in or finance in. When the transstellar tries to squeeze money from their captive economy, they lose value when their import gains increase. Far easier and more efficient to keep a hard currency and maintain artificially low wages. This is also far mor consistent with the descriptions in the stories.

No you miss the violence inherent in the system. The Transtellers do all their trade in hard currency.

Everyone who wants to buy outside goods from the transtellers needs to get hard currency. Which means the local elites are the only ones who do that. Everyone else buys from them, at a markup. See the example of the hard currency stores in the USSR.

The transtellar accounts are essentially a number in a computer system. Taking over the system doesn't give you access to their money. It's like thinking that all the deposits at BoA are stored in a bank vault. No, it's 99% just numbers in a computer system.

PeterZ wrote:No. The government on the protectorate world is the OFS. They charge fees on the protectorates, take bribes from the transstellars and collect their booty for their next posting. They can provide better grease with real currency, not some local make believe money.

Not exactly. OFS does step into direct administration of some worlds - the kind of arrangement you mention applies to sectors structured like the Maya Sector(the difference being that Governor Barregos isn't an asset-stripping fetishist). But they do like to work through puppet governments.

It's a remarkably cost-effective way of governing a vast empire. Send out a few Commissioners with small staffs and tiny forces to bully whole sectors - eg. Meyers was the capital of the Madras sector and had a local government with a constitutional monarch and Mobius had a President-for-life - by forcing the locals to carry out the dirty work themselves in exchange for a little power and some privileges.

In Meyers' case, the local elites used their limited influence to soften the harshness of OFS administration. In Mobius, they used it to call in reinforcements against local dissidents.

Don't want the deal? Ok, we'll send in an intervention division backed up by a cruiser force. And add the bill for that to your world's protection fees - your official League membership will be delayed for another century. Or two, if you put up a fight. You personally will go to jail for a long time or be killed.

Kzt and Munro,
You both make good arguments, but it just seems excessively complicated to manage with the different currencies. Keeping the protectorates using one of the few hard currencies and controlling wages is sufficient to control the economy. Having that extra step seems gratuitously severe.

Promoting the dual currency system in Verge system seems likely because it fosters that severity. The greater the severity for the Verge systems, the more likely they will petition for OFS intervention. Once under the "protection" of the OFS, governors would be foolish to exacerbate the reasons the protectorate have to rebel. Sure they can beat them down, but such chaos is bad for business. The transstellars would not want to have to fend off insurrections all day every day.

So, while you may be right, if I were a system's governor for an OFS protectorate, I would switch to a hard currency. It would simply make my job easier and generate more profits for both my patrons and myself.

cthia wrote:The League is in danger of unraveling. Their entire navy is defunct. They are in a state of war, de facto or otherwise with the most advanced navy in the galaxy, backed by the second and third most advanced navies in the galaxy.

No state of emergency? I'm certain the League would shit bricks on your idea of a state of emergency.

You are mixing up reality with the actions of the Mandarins.

No state of emergency. The thing is they haven't tried to declare one, nor can they. The Mandarins realize they are facing the most technologically advanced navy but they don't realize how total the domination is. However, they can't admit this! To declare that state of emergency is to admit they are no longer the 1000# gorilla--and thus to lose.

They are trying to get a situation that they can put a positive spin on any resolution of the problem. Lacking that they are trying to stomp on it while pretending it's just business as usual, no big deal.

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.

.

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.

Hi Jonathan_S,

Guys, we have in SoV, in about the middle of chapter 59 [August '22], the mandarins are discussing the latest bad news, about the best explanation we'll get on this subject, unless RFC decides to elucidate further, which I doubt, because he's made it rather plain, I think.

IE, where Kolokoltsov describes sending the 2 BF squadrons, albeit with 'professional' diplomats, to "protect and conserve league property-NTM collecting the central government's lawful duties and fees" while protecting the star systems from Manticore, who may have coerced them into making the secession proclamations that the government can't process until "after the cessation of hostilities with the Manticoran Alliance", when it'll "be in a better position to determine the constitutionality of secession and process such applications that aren't driven by Manticore", but the critical phrase in my book is the justification for all this is simply:

"given the deteriorating situation with Manticore, the Assembly and Government can't in good conscience allow these secession efforts to move forward. "

Evidently its still not a war, at least as they see it, nor are they bothering to inform the shells that a state of war exists or may yet threaten or occur; ie, not sending even a war warning alert message, which is obviously failing in their duty, even 2 monthes after the SEM/GA stated war now exists and and the RMN is certainly informing the verge systems it raids that it is most definitely war; the mandarins even among themselves, know they can't call it a war; much less declare it, using any typical euphemism they can, etc.

Abruzzi rather skeptically asks how long Kolokoltsov thinks this will bandage the situation, but can't offer anything better, so its essentially another case of delay; just kicking the can down the road, hoping something will turn up to rescue their disastrous situation in the meantime.

"Rots o' 'ruck!"

It'll probably take 2-3 weeks minimum for the BF TF's to reach these systems, and the same again to report their arrival back to Sol if the GA isn't there as it should be, as I've posted earlier.

Odds anyone?

Article seven in the SL constitution apparently is the defense clause that permitted immediate self defense, but Kolokoltsov mentioned how Rajani was already turning it into a pretzel before OB by activating BF reserve SD's without legal authorization, as did Langtry; just one more example of the mandarins ignoring their own laws; "let me count the ways, all the many ways".

The financial aspects of their discussion deserve their own posts, so I'll close here.

L

Jonathan_S wrote:quote="cthia"quote="Duckk"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.quote

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.

quoteThat 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:

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.

When I argue that it really isn't an open and shut case, the following is what I mean. It depends on the interpretative stance of any aggressive League lawyers and the intent and or spirit of the law.

I have five brilliant sisters. One a corporate lawyer. Hence, it is where I get all of my legal mumbo jumbo from listening to her rant over the years. I'm simply saying that we mustn't get too reliant on the letter of the League's Constitution. What is happening now is all unprecedented. When the League's Constitution was written, no one in their right mind could foresee a navy with the size, much less the balls, to challenge it or wage war against it. Had it seen such a thing ever coming to pass, I'm sure the Constitution would have reflected it. But if the League argues the intent or spirit of the law, they may have a thread to pull at. I'm simply trying to be thorough here, and not be influenced by any preconceived prejudices. After all, I'm a Manty too.

Frankly, I am awaiting for someone in the League to seek some real legal advice instead of guessing. I half-ass expected the Mandarins to seek the guidance of a savvy lawyer in the good ol' boy network who could recommend a legal strategy. Which hasn't happened yet. Simply speculation.


All from the wiki, to chew on...

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.

The Mandarins are just flapping their gums out of shock right now. I believe there will come a point when they will seek authentic legal guidance on the inner workings of the League Constitution and the responsibilities that they perceive rests on their shoulders to save the League and take advantage of any loopholes. I don't think they're simply going to give up the ship. If they do give up the ship or allow it to sink, then remember "To the victor goes the spoils." The Mandarins are the immediate spoils. Their head is in a noose, but they still have wiggle room and a chance to wiggle out of it. Self preservation. I'm willing to bet this legal maneuvering will come in the next book. It is natural and intuitive.

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.

Indeed Jonathan. But I oftentimes run into a brick wall trying to force a beginning point of a thread or conversation. 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 am simply attempting to discuss the comprehensive consequences, not only per Beowulf, if the Mandarins are successful at manipulating the League's Constitution in their favor.

"By George, I think we've got it! Now we can feed the traitors some crow!"

Even if later what they've got is simply a shameful misinterpretation of the Constitution, all of that would have to be formally considered, which takes lots of time by the League's dogma. And buying themselves time is all they need.

Which, I believe will happen in the next installment.

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.

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.

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.