- Joined
- Apr 18, 2025
- Messages
- 71
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE HONORABLE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
APPEAL
Your Honor,
The Crown respectfully submits this appeal on two distinct grounds, both arising from a major procedural error in the Chancery's otherwise thoughtful verdict.
While the Crown commends the Chancery's impartial and thorough summary of the parties' positions, we must address the fact that the Chancery rendered judgment upon a question that was never properly before it. The substantive legal issue in this case concerned the constitutionality of playtime requirements for candidacy under A.P.018. More specifically, whether such restrictions were reasonable and justified under the Constitution. On this matter, we believe the Chancery ruled correctly.
However, the Chancery went further, issuing an advisory opinion on playtime requirements for voting rights. This is a distinct constitutional question which neither party raised or argued before this Court. This is reflected in the Chancery's summary of the arguments presented by both parties.
The Crown respectfully requests the Chancery to urgently consider correction on the following grounds:
I. QUESTION RULED ON WHICH WAS NOT RAISED
The Chancery has ruled on a substantive constitutional question without affording the Crown any meaningful opportunity to present its case. While the Crown was able to defend candidacy requirements under A.P.018, we were provided no such opportunity to address the entirely separate matter of voting restrictions. When considering the extent to which constitutional rights shall or shall not be conferred, rulings on matters of such importance must not be issued without affording the Crown its day in court. The Crown could not reasonably have been expected to advocate on behalf of actions which were not called into question.
II. ANTIQUATED LEGAL AND FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Even if the question regarding playtime requirements for voting was properly before the Chancery, the passage of time has dramatically altered the legal landscape upon which any determination must rest. Whether or not a restriction on a fundamental constitutional right is "reasonable and justified" depends entirely upon whether it serves a legitimate purpose in the present day. Since the initial filing and deliberation of this matter, the enactment of the Streamlined Immigration Act (A.P. 03-003) has substantially changed the political conditions of the Kingdom. These changes directly affect the role, necessity, and proportionality of any playtime requirement relating to voting rights.
A ruling based upon the political realities that existed at the time of initial filing cannot plausibly satisfy current legal conditions. Moreover, the Crown was not reasonably afforded an opportunity to renew or adapt its position as the legal landscape shifted.
IN SUMMARY
Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria
APPEAL
Your Honor,
The Crown respectfully submits this appeal on two distinct grounds, both arising from a major procedural error in the Chancery's otherwise thoughtful verdict.
While the Crown commends the Chancery's impartial and thorough summary of the parties' positions, we must address the fact that the Chancery rendered judgment upon a question that was never properly before it. The substantive legal issue in this case concerned the constitutionality of playtime requirements for candidacy under A.P.018. More specifically, whether such restrictions were reasonable and justified under the Constitution. On this matter, we believe the Chancery ruled correctly.
However, the Chancery went further, issuing an advisory opinion on playtime requirements for voting rights. This is a distinct constitutional question which neither party raised or argued before this Court. This is reflected in the Chancery's summary of the arguments presented by both parties.
The Crown respectfully requests the Chancery to urgently consider correction on the following grounds:
I. QUESTION RULED ON WHICH WAS NOT RAISED
The Chancery has ruled on a substantive constitutional question without affording the Crown any meaningful opportunity to present its case. While the Crown was able to defend candidacy requirements under A.P.018, we were provided no such opportunity to address the entirely separate matter of voting restrictions. When considering the extent to which constitutional rights shall or shall not be conferred, rulings on matters of such importance must not be issued without affording the Crown its day in court. The Crown could not reasonably have been expected to advocate on behalf of actions which were not called into question.
II. ANTIQUATED LEGAL AND FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Even if the question regarding playtime requirements for voting was properly before the Chancery, the passage of time has dramatically altered the legal landscape upon which any determination must rest. Whether or not a restriction on a fundamental constitutional right is "reasonable and justified" depends entirely upon whether it serves a legitimate purpose in the present day. Since the initial filing and deliberation of this matter, the enactment of the Streamlined Immigration Act (A.P. 03-003) has substantially changed the political conditions of the Kingdom. These changes directly affect the role, necessity, and proportionality of any playtime requirement relating to voting rights.
A ruling based upon the political realities that existed at the time of initial filing cannot plausibly satisfy current legal conditions. Moreover, the Crown was not reasonably afforded an opportunity to renew or adapt its position as the legal landscape shifted.
IN SUMMARY
- The Chancery has ruled upon a constitutional question raised by neither party; and
- That ruling was based upon circumstances that have since materially changed; and
- In both cases, the Crown Council was not provided an opportunity to articulate the position of the Crown on these matters.
- Confine its ruling to the precise question which was actually presented: whether the candidacy playtime requirement provided under A.P.018 is constitutionally reasonable and justified.
- Withdraw its advisory opinion concerning voting requirements until the Crown is provided an opportunity to present sufficient argument on this subject; and
- Issue an immediate emergency injunction of the advisory opinion concerning voting requirements, so that the Crown may continue its administration of the ongoing election without disruption while this appeal is pending.
Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria