Appeal: Denied Entreaty for Prior Ponderance V (Ch. 2025)

[ConsequencesInc]

To the Highest Court in all of Alexandria, I come before you requesting a prior ponderance and a ruling regarding an unsettled matter of law.

ENTREATY FOR PRIOR PONDERANCE

1.BACKGROUND

A. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Alexandria describes the Powers of Parliament (Part I, §3) and more specifically notes that Parliament has the power to:

“1. Legislative Power: Parliament has the authority to create, amend, and repeal laws.”

As well as,

“2. Financial Power: Parliament controls government spending, taxation, and the budget.”

B. The Civic Engagement Act (A.P. 021) outlines Petitions and Referendums, and notes in §4(4):

“(4) If the referendum passes with a simple majority, the government is obligated to comply with the result, unless the petition is relating to:
(a) A judicial matter;
(b) A matter relating to a player’s employment with a government Ministry;
(c) Repealing a law;
(d) A foreign relations matter.“

2. QUESTION OF PONDERANCE

Given the above mentioned background information, the questions I pose to the most Honorable and Highest Court in Alexandria are as follows:

1. Can Parliament repeal an Act of Parliament while there is an active referendum being voted on by the People of Alexandria related to that Act of Parliament?
2. If Parliament repeals an Act of Parliament before a referendum related to it has been passed, is the government still obligated to comply with the result?
3. Does a referendum on a repealed Act of Parliament affect the referendum's implementation?
4. If a referendum involves the financial power of Parliament, does a referendum obligating them to take financial action have to be followed?

Respectfully submitted to the Chancery,
June, 17th, 2025

ConsequencesInc

 

[Ibney0]

Your honours,

The Government seeks to enter an amicus curiae brief on this issue.

Respectfully,

Joseph Ibney0
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[juniperfig]

IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
REFUSAL OF WRIT
​

The Chancery has deliberated and decided that the probative value of answering this question does not outweigh the potential prejudicial effect of giving an answer to it. For a Writ of Prior Ponderance to be granted, the Chancery must behold an entreaty posed that is: (1) Valid as a question, (2) important enough to demand the attention of this court, (3) written in good faith, (4) ambiguous, and (5) a question of interpretation.

This matter is not nearly ambiguous enough to justify our involvement. It is specifically targeted towards recent events in Alexandria. Pondering this question would place the Chancery in the midst of an active political dispute, where proper legal avenues already exist. This is not a theoretical ambiguity nor a question lacking a clear path to adjudication; it is instead a live controversy for which citizens may possess standing. Where direct litigation is both possible and already underway, it is inappropriate for the Chancery to intervene through a Prior Ponderance.

The Chancery thanks all involved for their time. ​