Court Ruling of Executive-Elect Responsibilities of November 2012

Full Case Name
 Type

 Majority Opinion

## Case Facts

Elliot Neil's application to become Administrative Liaison was tabled to the Executive Branch on October 24, 2012. By October 27 she had achieved all the necessary votes to be approved as an Executive.

While this was going on, a constitutional amendment was being voted upon by the Administrative Branch to give the Administrative Branch the power to resolve a tie in a Major Executive election. On October 27, the amendment was first given to them for a vote. The Administrative Branch at this time had eight votes (including the Administrative Liaison), and after all votes had been cast by the 28th, a total of 5 were in favor, 2 were against, and the Administrative Liaison, which Stavrok was acting as because Neil had yet to appear on the Executive Branch site had cast one vote in favor. This was 6:2 and passed it. Chief Attorney, and also one of the main people in opposition to the amendment, Arnold Ogamon challenged Stavrok's vote as the acting Administrative Liaison saying that he was not authorized to cast that as by the time he had cast it Elliot Neil had already been approved by the Executive Branch as the new Administrative Liaison even though she was not yet on the Executive Branch site an acting as an Executive.

Elliot Neil did not appear in the Executive Branch site until late on the 28th. The amendment was put on hold until the court issued its decision.

## Decision

### Case Questions

**A)** Is there a distinction between Executive-elect and Executive, in terms of responsibilities, abilities, and requirements?

**B)** Is the amendment valid even though Neil had been elected but Stavrok cast the vote before she joined as an active Executive?

**C)** What are the direct requirements and situations for the Major Executive to perform their role as acting as a position?

### Decision

**On 11/15/12 (3:0):**

**A)** This court finds that there exists a distinction between Executive-elect and Executive, one that exists based on necessity and constitutional implications. An Executive-elect shall be any Executive-to-be who has yet to join the Executive Branch site or maintain active contact as to the extent of their office with the rest of the Executive Branch. There exists a period where the responsibility and power of that office is unclear, between after the Executive-elect is given their final vote in favor and when they actually join the activity in the Executive Branch, and during that period the Major Executive shall continue to act as their position.

**B)** The amendment is valid.

**C)** The Major Executive shall act as another Executive position when: there is no one in the office, the office holder is incapacitated and unable to act, the office holder has been gone more than five days (a non-announced absence), the office holder is on an official and announced absence, the office holder-elect has yet to join the Executive Branch site (they are unable to fulfill the responsibilities of their office), or any situation where the office-holder is unable to carry out the duties and powers of their office as a result of incapacitation in a non-political sense.

### Court Opinion

**Written by Chief Justice Esteemi:**

This court finds that there exists a distinction between Executive-elect and Executive, one that exists based on necessity and constitutional implications. An Executive-elect shall be any Executive-to-be who has yet to join the Executive Branch site or maintain active contact as to the extent of their office with the rest of the Executive Branch. There exists a period where the responsibility and power of that office is unclear, between after the Executive-elect is given their final vote in favor and when they actually join the activity in the Executive Branch, and during that period the Major Executive shall continue to act as their position.

Due to that, we find the amendment challenged by the Chief Attorney here to be valid.

Though the Major Executive's actions in this case were not politically polite, they were constitutional, but the court advises that at least 24 to 48 hours be given in the time after an Executive-elect receives their acceptance letter prior to any person acting as their position unless the situation be dire.

As a last part to this decision, the court chooses to address in exactly what situations the Major Executive acts as another, and we find this to be a suitable list: The Major Executive shall act as another Executive position when: there is no one in the office, the office holder is incapacitated and unable to act, the office holder has been gone more than five days (a non-announced absence), the office holder is on an official and announced absence, the office holder-elect has yet to join the Executive Branch site (they are unable to fulfill the responsibilities of their office), or any situation where the office-holder is unable to carry out the duties and powers of their office as a result of incapacitation in a non-political sense.