The Maya Crisis...

OrlandoNative wrote:

SWM wrote:I was the one who said that it was illegal for the League government. I also said that it was the local government which was taking out the bonds, not the League government, and the quote shows that. The Solarian League Treasury is underwriting the Maya bonds, it is not taking out the bonds itself. That may be a big enough difference to get around the legality issue.

Considering what they've already done, I don't think "legality" issues are something the League's "shadow government" really care about.

They've already admitted that much of what they've done in governing the League is illegal under the League's own constitution.

The Mandarins might not care about legality, but the members of the League do, as I've said several times. The Mandarins will try to avoid doing things that will get the League members angry at them.

SWM wrote:The Mandarins might not care about legality, but the members of the League do, as I've said several times. The Mandarins will try to avoid doing things that will get the League members angry at them.

And the gnomes of Neu Zürich will most definitely care.

SWM wrote:The Mandarins might not care about legality, but the members of the League do, as I've said several times. The Mandarins will try to avoid doing things that will get the League members angry at them.

And when they run out of legal options they will do what they think they need to do and challenge anyone to do anything about it. The SL legislature will then rubber stamp it. Since it will probably require at least 1/3rd of the SL replacing their representatives to have a chance of the legislature passing any laws to stop them, they will have a significant amount of time in which to work.

kzt wrote:

SWM wrote:The Mandarins might not care about legality, but the members of the League do, as I've said several times. The Mandarins will try to avoid doing things that will get the League members angry at them.

And when they run out of legal options they will do what they think they need to do and challenge anyone to do anything about it. ...

I think the example of President Andrew Jackson is relevant:

"He has made his ruling. Now, let him enforce it." -- OWTTE

Weird Harold wrote:I think the example of President Andrew Jackson is relevant:

"He has made his ruling. Now, let him enforce it." -- OWTTE

But the Court did not have its own police force, let alone an army answerable to them (in probably over 90% of the members of the League, SDF forces are locally superior to the SLN, if only because LACs & forts > nothing).

drothgery wrote:But the Court did not have its own police force, let alone an army answerable to them (in probably over 90% of the members of the League, SDF forces are locally superior to the SLN, if only because LACs & forts > nothing).

It's perfectly legal. The court has agreed and so did the legislature. It's just reactionaries like you that can't handle the living constitution. So these nice men will take you to where other nice men can help you with this problem. But have to run, I'm already late from my dinner with my wife the Supreme Court justice.

kzt wrote:

drothgery wrote:But the Court did not have its own police force, let alone an army answerable to them (in probably over 90% of the members of the League, SDF forces are locally superior to the SLN, if only because LACs & forts > nothing).

It's perfectly legal. The court has agreed and so did the legislature. It's just reactionaries like you that can't handle the living constitution. So these nice men will take you to where other nice men can help you with this problem. But have to run, I'm already late from my dinner with my wife the Supreme Court justice.

Courts would probably be induced to agree, yes, unless there's something clear and explicitly forbidding it either in the Constitution or in preexisting law.
However, the Legislature would not - the Legislature is, after all, the representation of the member system governments. And sure, a lot of them are corrupt and could probably be bought off, but I suspect enough of them would be sufficiently opposed or bought by opposed parties that the Legislature could not successfully approve it.

It's also worth noting that the League itself probably wouldn't be doing the implementation directly, it would likely fall upon member systems themselves to implement it in their system, and so all they have to do is not carry through the implementation. At least, as far as full members go.

SWM wrote:The Mandarins might not care about legality, but the members of the League do, as I've said several times. The Mandarins will try to avoid doing things that will get the League members angry at them.

kzt wrote:And when they run out of legal options they will do what they think they need to do and challenge anyone to do anything about it. ...

Weird Harold wrote:I think the example of President Andrew Jackson is relevant:

"He has made his ruling. Now, let him enforce it." -- OWTTE

Heh. I think everyone is right. SWM because the systems that actually care (not all, but some of the 25% of the systems that didn't support sanctioning an "investigation" of Beowulf) will protest and then leave the League; kzt because that is exactly the limited view of Nathan McCartney and all the Mandarins (except Kolokoltsov and maybe Agata W.) and because they'll feel it is the least worst of all their bad options.

Harold, which example from President Jackson's career are you referring to? The days when Gen. Jackson violated lots of treaties with the Spanish Empire, and stole the Floridas from Spain? The days when he ticked off the upper class and wealthy by extending the franchise to all us illiterate, non-property-holding scum? (Speaking as a poor, white, anglo-saxon-irish-german retired army grunt).

I rather like Jackson, in some ways. But I studied Europe mostly, and diplomatic history. But I do remember he had a very very long career of ticking off his political opponents.

regards, all!
Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Harold, which example from President Jackson's career are you referring to?

A Supreme Court decision that Georgia had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Google the quote for specifics. It was part of the lead-up to the Indian Relocations and Trail of Tears.

Weird Harold wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Harold, which example from President Jackson's career are you referring to?

A Supreme Court decision that Georgia had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Google the quote for specifics. It was part of the lead-up to the Indian Relocations and Trail of Tears.

Yeah, I'll do that, thanks.

That sounds like one of the legal problems up here in Oneida county too--finding the actual limits of responsibility and sovereignty between the Feds, the State, and the Indians.

Rob