BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA

cthia wrote:Every time I yell treason, all of you come at me with pitchforks. But how was Beowulf's actions not treasonous?

cthia wrote:They were married to the League and found a new boyfriend. But you've got the obligation to end your previous relationship properly.

cthia wrote:Treason is not the note you should end your previous relationship on. It's a total act of disrespect.

TheMadPenguin wrote:

cthia wrote:Every time I yell treason, all of you come at me with pitchforks. But how was Beowulf's actions not treasonous?

1: There was no war declared. Therefore no treason against the League.
2: Passing news of the unlawful 400-waller invasion to attempt to prevent another Spindle, or to mitigate the totality of destruction to anybody/everybody, is not treason. It's letting the US know that an army of Cartel gunman is coming to take control of the US/Mex border. Manticore must know of the not-at-war strike force coming to commit acts of war, or there is a betrayed friendship.

cthia wrote:They were married to the League and found a new boyfriend. But you've got the obligation to end your previous relationship properly.

There was more intermarriage between Manticore and Beowulf than between Beowulf and Sol.

cthia wrote:Treason is not the note you should end your previous relationship on. It's a total act of disrespect.

This mirrors to the campaign of violence and disrespect shown by the Mandarins, the League, and Sol towards Beowulf and SKM/SEM.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Keeping my imagery more mundane, I think that CTHIA has a very valid point. From the perspective of the Mandarins, Beawulf is guilty of betraying the SL. The charge of treason is all the more credible because Beawulf along with all of the SL core worlds were willing to turn a blind eye to the gratuitous abuses of the SLN, FF and OFS. Any moral outrage about the attack on Manticore is pure hypocrosy.

Of course the written constitution of the SL gives Beawulf the explicit right to secceed. But rights like muscles tend to atrophy when they are not exercised.

Alistair wrote:In Pearls of Weber it states:
If Beowulf had wished at any time to become a member star system of the Star Kingdom of Manticore, it could legally have done so. The Solarian League Constitution, like that of the Republic of Haven, enshrines the right of self-determination by its member systems, and the right of any member system to withdraw from the League. No full member system has ever attempted to do so, and the possible consequences of such an attempt might be interesting, but the legal right exists and is recognized by all constitutional scholars.

If Beowulf right to leave is recognised by ALL "constitutional scholars" then do the Mandarins have a leg to stand on in the court of public opinion when Beowulf leaves the SL?

runsforcelery wrote:The question here isn't whether or not Beowulf has a legal right as defined by the Constitution to leave the League; it's whether or not the constitutional provision is still operable, despite never having been repealed or formally amended.
-- snip --
The SL’s constitution is several times as old as the present US Constitution, and (in many ways) constitutional law is much less well developed in the SL than in the US because the SL’s constitution has been essentially ignored in so many ways during the evolution of the present bureaucratic system. The sheer age of that bureaucratic system --- fact that it's been in existence and effectively unchallenged for so many centuries --- only reinforces that tendency and obscures the theoretically clear limitations on governmental power in general. Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

For example, US history is replete with presidents , congresses, and (especially) agencies which have cheerfully ignored constitutional restrictions until/unless they were brought up short by the courts . . . and in some cases, even after being ruled against by the courts. I’m sure quite a few US citizens will recall FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court when the Court began ruling his anti-Depression programs unconstitutional. Going farther back in time we have Andrew Jackson defying the Marshall Court in Worcester v. Georgia, and present day federal agencies like the IRS are notorious for nonacquiescence — that is, for deliberately ignoring court decisions which go against them and refusing to accept their validity as binding precedent. In the final analysis, the rule of law — the ability of the judiciary to enforce its interpretation of law on the rest of government — depends upon the willingness of the rest of the government to allow itself to be so bound. The US idea is that the balance of powers between the branches will produce not just rivalries but also natural alliances between them, in the sense of each branch safeguarding its own power from encroachment by the others and combining to prevent any one branch from usurping its/their powers. The equation depends upon balance, however, and once the balance begins slipping, it’s almost inevitable that one branch or the other will begin amassing a disproportionate share of power at the cost of the other branches, regardless of anything the letter of the law may say.

Mandarins, anyone?

TheMadPenguin wrote:

cthia wrote:Every time I yell treason, all of you come at me with pitchforks. But how was Beowulf's actions not treasonous?

1: There was no war declared. Therefore no treason against the League.
2: Passing news of the unlawful 400-waller invasion to attempt to prevent another Spindle, or to mitigate the totality of destruction to anybody/everybody, is not treason. It's letting the US know that an army of Cartel gunman is coming to take control of the US/Mex border. Manticore must know of the not-at-war strike force coming to commit acts of war, or there is a betrayed friendship.

cthia wrote:They were married to the League and found a new boyfriend. But you've got the obligation to end your previous relationship properly.

There was more intermarriage between Manticore and Beowulf than between Beowulf and Sol.

cthia wrote:Treason is not the note you should end your previous relationship on. It's a total act of disrespect.

This mirrors to the campaign of violence and disrespect shown by the Mandarins, the League, and Sol towards Beowulf and SKM/SEM.

tlb wrote:If only it were that easy, then this thread would have ended after a page or two. He bases his claim of treason, not on a state of war, but on a theory of "implied responsibilities". Arguing against implied responsibilities is like arguing against ghosts: you can claim they do not exist, because they are never seen; but the rejoinder will be that you can not see them, because they are invisible.
It might be more profitable to argue that the Mandarins hate Beowulf, because the people of that planet represent a threat to their power and position. The League bureaucrats want a declaration of war, but an Assembly vote on that requires unanimous consent. Why a declaration, when a state of war already exists? Because like the situation in Manticore during Field of Dishonor, it permits certain actions that include the transfer of powers from the members to the government: see for example the discussions between Beowulf and the SLN about the wormhole before Raging Justice.

Arguing against implied responsibilities is like arguing against ghosts: you can claim they do not exist, because they are never seen; but the rejoinder will be that you can not see them, because they are invisible.

tlb wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Keeping my imagery more mundane, I think that CTHIA has a very valid point. From the perspective of the Mandarins, Beawulf is guilty of betraying the SL. The charge of treason is all the more credible because Beawulf along with all of the SL core worlds were willing to turn a blind eye to the gratuitous abuses of the SLN, FF and OFS. Any moral outrage about the attack on Manticore is pure hypocrosy.

Of course the written constitution of the SL gives Beawulf the explicit right to secceed. But rights like muscles tend to atrophy when they are not exercised.

The point though is more than just the perspective of the Mandarins; he believes that Beowulf is objectively guilty of treason, not just subjectively.
Considering the SL Constitution; I found a post from RFC that is pertinent (the snip removes a paragraph about US amendments which triggered a discussion that caused Duckk to close the thread):

Alistair wrote:In Pearls of Weber it states:
If Beowulf had wished at any time to become a member star system of the Star Kingdom of Manticore, it could legally have done so. The Solarian League Constitution, like that of the Republic of Haven, enshrines the right of self-determination by its member systems, and the right of any member system to withdraw from the League. No full member system has ever attempted to do so, and the possible consequences of such an attempt might be interesting, but the legal right exists and is recognized by all constitutional scholars.

If Beowulf right to leave is recognised by ALL "constitutional scholars" then do the Mandarins have a leg to stand on in the court of public opinion when Beowulf leaves the SL?

runsforcelery wrote:The question here isn't whether or not Beowulf has a legal right as defined by the Constitution to leave the League; it's whether or not the constitutional provision is still operable, despite never having been repealed or formally amended.
-- snip --
The SL’s constitution is several times as old as the present US Constitution, and (in many ways) constitutional law is much less well developed in the SL than in the US because the SL’s constitution has been essentially ignored in so many ways during the evolution of the present bureaucratic system. The sheer age of that bureaucratic system --- fact that it's been in existence and effectively unchallenged for so many centuries --- only reinforces that tendency and obscures the theoretically clear limitations on governmental power in general. Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

For example, US history is replete with presidents , congresses, and (especially) agencies which have cheerfully ignored constitutional restrictions until/unless they were brought up short by the courts . . . and in some cases, even after being ruled against by the courts. I’m sure quite a few US citizens will recall FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court when the Court began ruling his anti-Depression programs unconstitutional. Going farther back in time we have Andrew Jackson defying the Marshall Court in Worcester v. Georgia, and present day federal agencies like the IRS are notorious for nonacquiescence — that is, for deliberately ignoring court decisions which go against them and refusing to accept their validity as binding precedent. In the final analysis, the rule of law — the ability of the judiciary to enforce its interpretation of law on the rest of government — depends upon the willingness of the rest of the government to allow itself to be so bound. The US idea is that the balance of powers between the branches will produce not just rivalries but also natural alliances between them, in the sense of each branch safeguarding its own power from encroachment by the others and combining to prevent any one branch from usurping its/their powers. The equation depends upon balance, however, and once the balance begins slipping, it’s almost inevitable that one branch or the other will begin amassing a disproportionate share of power at the cost of the other branches, regardless of anything the letter of the law may say.

Mandarins, anyone?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Golly Gee Whizz, I wonder which of the Constitutional Amendment s provoked the Fecal Storm that compelled Duckk to close the thread?

Could you PM the snip to me?

tlb wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Golly Gee Whizz, I wonder which of the Constitutional Amendment s provoked the Fecal Storm that compelled Duckk to close the thread?

Could you PM the snip to me?

If once upon a time you were known as "namelessfly", then I expect you know very well what the discussion was; as that person made the last post before Duckk shut things down. If not, then the thread was called "Beowulf right to leave the SL" and the thread was closed on Wednesday, 11 June 2014. That is on page 77 for me.