- Joined
- Apr 18, 2025
- Messages
- 70
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR PRIOR PONDERANCE
Petitioner Labour/Public Servants humbly requests a Writ of Prior Ponderance regarding certain unsettled matters of law.
I. BASIS
The Constitution grants the Monarch the power to “[dissolve] the Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister and issuing Electoral Writs to the electoral authority.” See K. A. Const. §IV Art. 19(6). However, the constitution does not assign any definition to the term “dissolve” alongside the terms which it does define in K. A. Const. §VIII. Although this Court has already ruled in Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025) that Alexandria has no roots in any other common law system, Petitioner observes that it still exists in a larger world with many other nations that its founders drew inspiration from when drafting its founding document, and where certain legal terms are understood to have the same meaning across widespread and diverse jurisdictions. For the purposes of constructing this Entreaty, Petitioner turns to some of those other nations to derive some definition for the dissolution of Parliament.
During our research, Petitioner found a number of authoritative sources establishing a common meaning of the term “dissolve”. See Dissolution of Parliament (UK Parliament, 2025); House of Representatives Practice (7th Edition) (Australian House of Representatives, 2018); What is Dissolution of Parliament? (Senate of Canada, 2025). This body of references consistently shows that to dissolve a Parliament is to conclude all of its business and dismiss all of its members from service. It also shows that dissolving a Parliament signifies, and immediately precedes, the election of its successor. Petitioner acknowledges, however, that not every country uses this system. Petitioner points to the German system as a counterexample for the purposes of this Entreaty. See German Basic Law (German Federal Law Gazette, 2025). During an election, the outgoing German Parliament, a.k.a. the Bundestag, remains in session and retains all of its powers until the incoming Bundestag meets for the first time. The Basic Law also uses the word “dissolve” in relation to the initiation of early Bundestag elections, which introduces some ambiguity as to the real-world usage of this term.
Petitioner believes this matter to be worthy of prior ponderance by this Court because a peaceful and orderly transfer of power is a crucial element of a healthy democracy. It should be clear how the Constitution limits Parliament's power during an election, if at all.
II. INQUIRIES OF LAW
Following from the above Basis, Petitioner brings the following inquiries before the honorable Chancellors:
ENTREATY FOR PRIOR PONDERANCE
Petitioner Labour/Public Servants humbly requests a Writ of Prior Ponderance regarding certain unsettled matters of law.
I. BASIS
The Constitution grants the Monarch the power to “[dissolve] the Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister and issuing Electoral Writs to the electoral authority.” See K. A. Const. §IV Art. 19(6). However, the constitution does not assign any definition to the term “dissolve” alongside the terms which it does define in K. A. Const. §VIII. Although this Court has already ruled in Ayatha v. Rex, Case 6 (Ch. 2025) that Alexandria has no roots in any other common law system, Petitioner observes that it still exists in a larger world with many other nations that its founders drew inspiration from when drafting its founding document, and where certain legal terms are understood to have the same meaning across widespread and diverse jurisdictions. For the purposes of constructing this Entreaty, Petitioner turns to some of those other nations to derive some definition for the dissolution of Parliament.
During our research, Petitioner found a number of authoritative sources establishing a common meaning of the term “dissolve”. See Dissolution of Parliament (UK Parliament, 2025); House of Representatives Practice (7th Edition) (Australian House of Representatives, 2018); What is Dissolution of Parliament? (Senate of Canada, 2025). This body of references consistently shows that to dissolve a Parliament is to conclude all of its business and dismiss all of its members from service. It also shows that dissolving a Parliament signifies, and immediately precedes, the election of its successor. Petitioner acknowledges, however, that not every country uses this system. Petitioner points to the German system as a counterexample for the purposes of this Entreaty. See German Basic Law (German Federal Law Gazette, 2025). During an election, the outgoing German Parliament, a.k.a. the Bundestag, remains in session and retains all of its powers until the incoming Bundestag meets for the first time. The Basic Law also uses the word “dissolve” in relation to the initiation of early Bundestag elections, which introduces some ambiguity as to the real-world usage of this term.
Petitioner believes this matter to be worthy of prior ponderance by this Court because a peaceful and orderly transfer of power is a crucial element of a healthy democracy. It should be clear how the Constitution limits Parliament's power during an election, if at all.
II. INQUIRIES OF LAW
Following from the above Basis, Petitioner brings the following inquiries before the honorable Chancellors:
- What is the precise meaning of “dissolve” in K. A. Const. §IV Art. 19(6)?
- Does the Constitution mandate that Parliament must be dissolved during a general election, and if so, at what point in the election cycle must this dissolution take place?
