|
In as Chief Justice Takenaka Shigekata. Gentlemen, I will be your John Marshall.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
 Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court Gentlemen, This morning the Justices will return to the bench for the first time since last year. I look forward to serving Ezo over the coming months. The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the Republic of Ezo in a Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the Ezo; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present. The authority of the Court is therefore to ensure the maintenance of order and prevent degeneration into tyranny by addressing any question that seems repugnant to the Constitution before it can become the law of the land. In this sense, the Court is non-partisan and concerned solely with correct application of the law. Should any member of Ezo's society find government in violation of the Constitution on any matter, we remind them of their right to appeal to the Supreme Court for remedy. Any citizen who wishes to appeal to the Court should indicate who they are filing suit against (the case name), as well as, their grievance (the specific legal/constitutional question raised). Should the case have merit, it will be added to the docket. Thank you for your attention. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Matsumae Takahiro Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court The Supreme Court finds this case as one with merit and has added Matumae v. Republic of Ezo to its docket. I ask representatives for both sides to present oral arguments before the Court. (OOC: The Matsumae Clan doesn't need to present any arguments because they already did so in their petition. If a government representative would like to present counterarguments, I'll consider it in my decision.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court Gentlemen, Having received the honor of appointment, it is my duty to request of the many gentlemen, whose character I sincerely respect, full attention. It is perhaps improper that I address the Congress directly, as doing so might raise concerns over my impartiality, but I see no other recourse for my grievance. My sole objective is to ensure the Judiciary be, as our Constitution declares, an independent and co-equal branch of government. However, my ability to rule fairly and impartially is impaired. While our Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, the government has yet to furnish it with a building. There has not even been a courtroom reserved for the institution, forcing it to impose upon local courts for trials and proceedings. For case files and legal books, I have been forced to store them at my estate. These housing arrangements put into jeopardy the decisions of the Court. How can the Court be expected to rule impartially when the Court uses the very same courtroom that an appealed case was heard in, under the watchful eye of the previous judge? Should a case be brought against my clan, how can the Justices be expected to rule fairly when they must ask permission from my clan to retrieve their research? These concerns must be addressed before it compromises our Republic's legitimacy. Therefore, I do request Congress either allocate funds to construct a building for the Supreme Court or donate a building for the sole use of the body. Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court Gentlemen, I would like to, once again, remind the people of Ezo that any matters relating to Constitutional law or grievances against the government may be brought against the Supreme Court. Our docket is currently empty. We also request the Congress to allocate funding toward construction of a Supreme Court Building, as I requested earlier. The Court is currently forced to rely on local courtrooms to conduct business and all legal files are stored on my estate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court The Associate Justices and myself thank the President for his gracious gift of a Supreme Court building. Although incomplete, we have already begun to transfer essential files to the structure. Your devotion to law and order is appreciated. Once again, anyone wishing to file suit with the Court should indicate the government agency they are suing and the Constitutional issue being violated. If the case is accepted, we will immediately hear oral arguments and provide an appropriate ruling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court The Court also condemns the attack on the wedding. We urge all citizens to remain calm in this time of crisis and avoid the temptation of vigilantism. This matter will be handled by the appropriate legal bodies and any attempt to deal with the crisis on a unilateral basis will only impede the investigation. Thank you for your time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court Fall Sick and Die posted:
Litos posted:
The Supreme Court will hear Keisuke v. Takeaki. Please have patience while we review the facts of the case and draft a ruling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court A RICH WHITE MAN posted:Katsu Kaishū (勝 海舟) I believe the arrangement proposed by the President was for both the Shogun and myself to serve in an advisory capacity in the appointment of an investigator. While direct appointment as Chief Justice would be a conflict of interest and violation of the separation of powers, it is completely within my purview to offer recommendations in an unofficial capacity. The President or Congress makes the ultimate decision. That said, the Shogun and I would recommend Jules Brunet to chair the investigation. He is a distinguished member of society, whose involvement in the case would grant it greater legitimacy. While some may protest his involvement because he is foreign, I feel this attribute is actually a strength. He is not indebted to any part of Ezo's political system. He is also one of the few individuals who did not attend the wedding ceremony and can be cleared of all blame. My alternative recommendation would be Vice President Matsudaira Tarou. He, like Brunet, did not attend the wedding and has remained distant from the political arena. It is highly unlikely that he had any involvement in the incident. In his role as President of the Congress, he can also communicate well with both the legislative and executive branches. My only concern is that appointing him to a commission may set forth a precedent where the Vice President becomes de facto Attorney General. I would also recommend that Ezo immediately contact the British government and cooperate with them on the issue before the attack becomes an international incident. The death of four British subjects is a matter of grave concern and the United Kingdom may wish to offer some assistance in uncovering the perpetrator. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court Otori, Ministry of the Army, et al v. Enomoto, 1 R.E.R. 96 (1877) 1 R.E.R. 96 Otori, Ministry of the Army v. Enomoto Mr. Chief Justice Takenaka Shigekata delivered the opinion of the Court. This question in this case is whether the Constitution grants the President exclusive power to remove executive officers appointed by and with the advice and consent of Congress. Otori, the plantiff, was appointed by the President on November 1, 1873 to serve as Minister of the Army. In April 10, 1877, Otori’s resignation was demanded for perceived misconduct in Satsuma. He refused the demand. On April 15, 1873, he was removed from office via executive order. The Congress did not consent to the President’s removal of Otori during his term and Otori continued to fulfill the duties of the office against the wishes of the Executive. Otori sent petitions to the President, the Congress, and Judiciary, protesting against his removal as a violation of the Constitution’s Advise and Consent Clause. He argued that the President cannot replace a magistrate without the approval of a majority in Congress. Using its original jurisdiction over cases affecting public Ministers and Consuls, the Supreme Court accepted the case. The Constitution is silent on the issue of dismissal. It is only through implication that the plaintiff’s argument can be sustained. The relevant parts of the Constitution are as follows: Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 posted:The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the Republic of Ezo... Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 posted:[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Congress, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Representatives present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of Congress, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the Republic of Ezo, whose Appointments are herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferor Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Article II, Section III posted:: He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Republic, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of Ezo. There is no clear answer within the Constitution to address this question. Although the power of dismissal was discussed during the war against Meiji, there were many arguments and no one rule was agreed upon. It became the topic of significant tension and resentment among officials. It seems that there is no express provision respecting removals in the Constitution, except in Section 4 of Article 3, for this reason. During the war, a popular argument by the Republican Faction insisted that the President was granted the power of appointment and removal of executive officers, by virtue of leading that branch. The group indicated an intention to create a strong executive, and feared that restricting the power of removal would undermine the executive’s authority and independence. It would become a manifestation of the Congress’ will, such is the case in many parliamentary states across the globe. Under Section 2 of Article II, however, the power of appointment is checked by the Congress. The body can reject the officers that he nominates. This provision was seen by the Republican Faction as admittance of the potential tyranny in the Presidency. The President could exercise his power in opposition to the people, while the Congress, as the only governmental manifestation of the people’s will, would be helpless. Another argument put forward by the faction was that the power of removal would not be enough to prevent malconduct. The Court notes with great distaste that the current Legislature has done nothing to address any of these arguments. There have been no provisions or acts put forth by Congress regarding the matter of removal, as would generally be expected of such an important topic. Constitutional law supersedes all else. But when there is no Constitutional provision, the Court must fall back upon acts of the National Legislature and the common law of the land. In this case, Congress has provided no act for the Court to use as a basis. Every act of government is presumed to be constitutional. The courts ought not to declare one to be unconstitutional, unless it is clearly so. If there is doubt, the expressed will of the Executive and Legislature should be sustained. It is reasonable to suppose that had the Constitution been intended to give Congress the power to regulate removals in the manner suggested by Otori, it would have been specifically enumerated in Article I, as a power of the Congress, or Article II, as a restriction upon the executive. Yet, there is none. The power to prevent the removal of an officer who served under the President is different from the power of consent. During the appointment process, it should be assumed that the Congress is as aware of the qualifications of the nominee as the President. However, in the course of serving his office, defects in ability or intelligence or loyalty in administration, may surface. At this point, the President or his trusted subordinates, must be better informed than the Senate. The power to remove him is be regarded as sound for pragmatic reasons, to ensure administrative control. The power of removal is incidental to the power of appointment. The Court also notes that giving Congress unlimited discretion over the removal of officers fundamentally undermines the independence of the executive branch. The department would lose all legitimacy and power against the intrusive powers of Legislature. Without a confidence in the Executive, its operations would be subject to perpetual chaos, and the administration of the government become impracticable. Legislature already exerts some influence over the executive through the appointment process and through other means. It is through Congress that posts are created. The Legislature creates the office, defines its powers, limits its duration, and determines just compensation. The President must already bow to Congress if he wants a new advisor. They should have nothing to do with removing the samurai to fill the office. These arguments are supported by Ezo’s history and tradition. During the feudal period, the Shogun was never required to meet with his subjects to remove an advisor. These individuals operated at the pleasure of the Shogun, not at the general public’s happiness. These advisors were manifestations of the Shogun’s will. Such is the same in Ezo, where the role of the Magistrate is to fulfill those duties which the President cannot personally accomplish. The responsibilities of the Executive are legion, so it cannot be expected for the President to accomplish each one himself. He must rely on others to act with his will. By allowing Congress to freely remove ministers increases the risk of cohabitation, where the advisor exists only to limit the Executive’s power. Such a circumstance would be a clear abuse of power by the Legislature and an unconstitutional check upon the President’s authority. Such potential for abuse cannot be allowed to stand. As an incidental addendum, the Court notes that the President has appointed a new person to fill Otori’s post. While the Court does not find the removal of Otori to be a violation of the Constitution, the President’s actions here are a very clear violation of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Matsudaira Sadaaki cannot fulfill any duties of his office. The Executive cannot appoint individuals without the clear consent of Congress. The matter is decided. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court In summary, NAME OF THE CASE: Otori, Ministry of the Army, et al v. Enomoto, 1 R.E.R. 96 (1877) FACTS OF THE CASE: Otori Keisuke served as Army Magistrate in President Enomoto’s Cabinet. As part of Otori’s responsibilities, he was asked to assist in organizing an expeditionary force to Satsuma. There a rebellion against Meiji forces had occurred and Ezo hoped to assist the conflict to undermine the government’s authority. President Enomoto requested the Ministry of the Army provide 5,000 samurai for deployment. Although forces were deployed, Otori restricted the number of samurai to 1,000. Minister Otori was blamed after the expeditionary force failed. The President fired Otori from his position and appointed Matsudaira Sadaaki to take his place. Otori and the Ministry of the Army filed suit against the President claiming that he violated the Advise and Consent Clause. The President could not remove officials without Congressional approval. The Supreme Court of Ezo agreed to hear the case under its original jurisdiction. LEGAL QUESTIONS AND HOLDING: Majority Opinion – Chief Justice Takenaka: Joined by Justices Sato, Suzuki, Miyazaki, Narita, Takahashi
IMPLICATIONS: Otori is removed from office as per Presidential order. Matsudaira Sadaaki is blocked from assuming the responsibilities of the Minister of the Army until he confirmed by the Senate. Similar appointments are also blocked until they receive Senate confirmation. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Takenaka Shigekata Chief Justice of the Ezo Supreme Court Litos posted:
The Court will hear Otori v. Tokugawa and asks for Shogun Tokugawa to put forth oral arguments in his defense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2014 00:32
|
|