This issue was brought to the High Court just over two weeks ago by our Prime Minister. Though it does not strictly fall under the issue of a Constitutional Review, it did warrant discussion and exploration on the part of the justices. Ministerial positions and confirmations were at the heart of this issue, especially how they relate to the shifts in regional governance that may occur following elections. Anticipating the next election cycle, the PM sought the opinion of the High Court in regards to the reconfirmation of existing Ministers. The current PM, in the case of his re-election, was curious as to whether or not Ministers appointed and confirmed during their first term as PM would have to be re-confirmed by the House at the beginning of their second term.

As an issue, this case primarily relates to Article I, Section II of the Constitution, the beginning of which reads: "The Prime Minister reserves the right to appoint a minister, with the consent of the House..." It is the opinion of the Chief Justice that Ministers, even if they were confirmed during the first term of the Prime Minister, require re-confirmation during the PM's second term. It is the opinion of the Chief Justice that "the House" in Article I, Section II refers to the current, standing version of the House of Commons, not a stagnant version that exists in perpetuity. Therefore, garnering the approval of the House of Commons during the first term of the Prime Minister does not guarantee your eternal approval before the chamber for shifting, temporary positions like ministerial roles. As noted in the discussion between justices, there may have been a change in regional and representative opinion about a Minister, altering the chances of their re-confirmation, or their standing in the law may shift, requiring the House to reject their appointment.

To briefly answer the initial inquiry, yes, the House has to re-confirm individual, existing Ministers in the case of the Prime Minister's re-election and re-appointment of those Ministers. Though the High Court recommends that the House of Commons and its leadership find some way to expedite the process of re-confirming standing, successful Ministers. This ruling shall only apply to a newly-elected Prime Minister; reconfirmation hearings won't be held during every new House of Commons session.

Approved by Associate Justice Rhyssua
Approved by Associate Justice Islonia

The Justices of the High Court have unanimously agreed that a snap election must be held when either a Senator or MP resigns. Our reasoning is as follows:

There is no clear successor to MPs and Senators, such as a deputy. The fact that it had to be brought before the court makes the political party's claim of succession seem already unclear. Furthermore, in Thaecia's voting system, all parties submit a candidate roster, which they are unable to add candidates to after the nomination period. This means that when Thaecians vote, they are voting for the candidates on the roster, not voting directly for parties. In addition, should an independent resign, a snap election would clearly need to be held for their position. It should be no different for members of a political party.

Approved by Chief Justice Rhyssua
Approved by Associate Justice Islonia
Approved by Associate Justice Lemonadia

A majority of the Justices of the High Court have agreed that a constructive no-confidence vote must be held to replace the Speaker. Our reasoning is as follows:

The Constitution clearly outlines the procedure for changing Speakers mid-term: the constuctive no-confidence vote combining a no-confidence vote of the current Speaker with the election of a replacement. If this were ignored, then the entire section of the Constitution would be deemed irrelevant. In addition, Article 2, section IV, subsection 1 defines the constructive vote of no-confidence as “a motion where a replacement (coalition) for a certain function is already present and nominated in the motion.” This indicates that the constructive no-confidence vote is intended for a coalition change, and when they have a replacement for the Speakership in mind.

Approved by Chief Justice Rhyssua

Approved by Associate Justice Islonia

The Justices of the High Court have unanimously agreed that elected officials can maintain their citizenship if they leave the region, as long as they return before the next WA update. Our reasoning is as follows:

The WA update is used to change a person’s endorsement status if they change regions, or to update their status as a WA member should it change due to rule violations or otherwise. If a nation leaves its home region, but returns before the update, it will still retain any endorsements from its home region. Therefore, the game still considers the nation to be a resident of its home region. This precedent will solve problems of accidentally leaving the region, leaving the region to speak to other regions not connected to Thaecia, or otherwise.

Approved by Chief Justice Rhyssua
Approved by Associate Justice Islonia
Approved by Associate Justice Lemonadia

The Justices of the High Court have unanimously agreed that a new citizen can vote in any elections currently going on when they gain their citizenship. There is no constitutional basis for any argument either establishing a naturalization period for citizenship or denying them the vote.

However, given the obvious security concerns that it raises, the High Court recommends that the legislature passes a constitutional amendment addressing this issue as soon as it can. The Court would also like to remind the Executive branch of its powers regarding border control, in the event of a regional emergency regarding mass immigration and voting during election time.

Approved by Chief Justice Rhyssua
Approved by Associate Justice Islonia
Approved by Associate Justice Lemonadia

In addition to this, Article VI of the Constitution states "To be a citizen, residents must be in the World Assembly (WA). This requirement may be bypassed by sending the Prime Minister, President or Home Affairs Minister a telegram from a nation in the WA confirming the non-WA resident is a puppet of the WA nation elsewhere.".

A majority of the Justices of the High Court have agreed that this contradiction can only be solved through a constitutional amendment. Our reasoning is as follows:

Being a member of the World Assembly is part of the main NationStates game, which we will call the meta game. The Thaecian Constitution, however supreme it is, is part of the User-Created Game, the UCG representing Thaecia outside the meta game part (The constitution, the laws, the institutions, etc...).
In this case, the meta game not being included in the UCG, where the constitution is supreme, no law or court ruling can solve this problem, as this is outside the constitution's jurisdiction, making it powerless.
Therefore, if a WA-Waivered Nation was elected President of Thaecia, he/she will have to solve this meta game problem or resign from a position he/she cannot sit.

Approved by Chief Justice Saint ryvern
Approved by Associate Justice Islonia
Approved by Associate Justice Lemonadia

CR. 007 was called to review Article VIII, Section V, which reads "If there is no clear successor (e.g. a deputy), an snap election shall be held for elected posts". The court deemed that accepting this case was valid so as to allow for us to set a precedent which may not be well clarified regarding the constitutional procedure for succession of the Prime Minister and President, seeing as in the past there has been a ruling regarding MPs and Senators, while the situation of the PM and President hasn't been officially addressed.

When it comes to the constitutional succession of the President, taking a look at the section under review, it is clarified that a snap election shall only occur if there isn't a legal successor. In the situation of the President, he may or may not have a Vice President, depending on whether he is WA-Waivered or not. During the statement phase a possibility was brought up by the Justice Minister that the Vice President wasn't in fact the "clear successor" to the President, noting that the position was created merely to fulfill the duties of the WA Delegate. Upon further analysis into Congressional History to confirm if that was indeed the intention when the Constitutional Amendment which created the position of Vice President was debated, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Justice Ministry is indeed correct about this. To justify why we believe that the Vice President isn't the lawful successor to the President we point out to the following post made by the author of the constitutional amendment when an amendment to the legislation was proposed, with this post remaining un-edited to this day: https://i.imgur.com/n7xLhqE.png

Taking this into account, in the scenario that the President is to exit office through normal means, such as a resignation, the court believes that under the current legislation there would have to be a snap election, with the Prime Minister observing the duties of President until a new one is elected.

Now for the Prime Minister. The constitution specifies under Article I Section III “...The president shall be the Head of State of Thaecia, observing only the Powers of the Prime Minister, when the office of the Prime Minister is vacant.” while it is stated in Article I Section IX: "...while in time of sede vacante the clear successor shall observe the duties of the Prime Minister". As Article I Section IX is relating to the removal of the Prime Minister through a Vote of No Confidence, the court finds that only in those instances does the “clear successor” observe the duties of the Prime Minister. In all other instances, the President is found by the court to observe the duties of the Prime Minister. Further considering Article I Section IX: While the possibility of the President being the successor of the Prime Minister was brought up during the statement phase, it is one the Court does not find enough evidence to accept as valid. The constitution specifies under Article I Section IX: "...while in time of sede vacante the clear successor shall observe the duties of the Prime Minister." Notice how once more the Constitution points out to a clear successor, however who is this "clear" successor isn't "clear" at all, thus we don't find any basis to conclude that would be the President. Now onto another point which wasn't brought up on this specific but has been considered before and we believe should be addressed, that being whether the Prime Minister legally has a Deputy or not. In the past people have served under the office of Deputy Prime Minister, however after constitutional amendments the office was indirectly abolished. To understand why we point out to Article I Section I of the First Constitution of Thaecia: "The Executive branch of government, also known as the Cabinet, shall be comprised of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Justice Minister, the Cultural/Entertainment Minister, the Role-play Minister and their deputies." Notice how the Constitution used to read that in a way which directly stated that the Prime Minister had a deputy as it was a member of Cabinet. Once again however, the Constitution was amended and that is no longer the case, and while Deputy Ministers were created through L.R. 014, it can't be interpreted that the Prime Minister fulfills the conditions to have a Deputy.

Taking this into account, the court finds that, while in the past the Prime Minister had a Deputy and as such a legal successor, due to constitutional amendments that can no longer be considered the case, as such the court concludes that, under current legislation there would have to be a snap election if the Prime Minister were to exit office. In the case the Prime Minister exits office through any means which do not include a motion of no confidence, the President is to observe his powers until a snap election is held. If the Prime Minister is however, removed from office due to a motion of no confidence, currently no-one would observe his powers until a snap election is held, seeing as a "Clear Successor" hasn't been defined through law yet.

Lastly, during the statement phase a possibility was brought up that lines of succession could be created for both offices, and whether or not that would require a constitutional amendment. The constitution does not specify whether it is possible or not for the creation of "clear successors" to elected offices with none, as such it would be baseless of the court to assume that can't be allowed. Not being addressed through the Constitution, we can on only conclude said matter can be addressed through legislation.

Taking this into account, the court finds that yes, legal lines of succession can be created to elected offices with no clear successor.

Assenting Justices:
Lemonadia
Broustan
Cerdenia

Dissenting:
None