| CELTHES v. The Executive Branch
|Supreme Court: 3/4/11 - 3/7/11|
|Full Case Name||CELTHES v. The Executive Branch|
|Esteemi Evantsu, Stavrok, Hik10er|
|The Executive Branch is not responsible for the individual actions of an Executive if they are within legal bounds.|
|Majority Opinion||Esteemi Evantsu|
CELTHES v. The Executive Branch was the first Supreme Court case so it was very important in establishing precedents on how the Supreme Court decides cases.
Red Triumvirate, the Head of Clan Relations at the time, spoke with Nremni (the leader of the CELTHES clan) and asked if Nremni or his clan would give him money in RuneScape gold. Nremni refused. After some time Nremni discovered that the Executives knew that Red had planned to do this and even though they did not want Red Triumvirate to do this they did not stop him. Nremni believed that the Executives should have stopped Red and that what Red did was not appropriate. Nremni sent his case, and the first case to reach the first court, and the Justices brought it forth on March fourth of 2011.
Nremni, the leader of CELTHES representing them in the case, and a long time member of the Triumvirate argued that Red had violated sections of article three of the Constitution but did not bring that against Red. Instead he used his case to ask a legal question of the Justices involving whether the Executives should have prevented this action of Red's and whether Red's request was justified. Nremni was very accepting that he may be wrong in this case and that he appreciated the Executive Branch one way or the other. He simply wanted to understand what was correct in the situation.
Defense (The Executive Branch)Edit
Chief Attorney and Minor Executive Arnold Ogamon argued for the Executive Branch in the case. His argument consisted generally that while he agreed Red's actions were not appropriate, that the Executive Branch shouldn't be legally forced to control every action of its members. He argued that the asking for money was a freedom of speech and that the Executive Branch doesn't HAVE to restrain its members from doing things but it SHOULD.
The case moved very quickly through the court before a decision was made. Both parties were respectful even as the case was a little rough due to the nature of it being the first case to be heard.
The Constitutional questions for the case were narrowed to these two:
A) Are individual Executives permitted to ask Clans for money without Executive Branch approval?
B) Must the Executives stop one of their own members from doing something undesirable even if it is within legal boundaries?
On 3/7/11 (3:0):
Written by Justice Esteemi:
The actions observed by CELTHES were misguided and not proper but were nonetheless legal. No infringement was made on the basis that most of the actions committed by the executive who was central to this case were simple freedom of speech or necessities of the branch. Yes, individual executives are allowed to ask for money. In some cases it may be very important and crucial, putting a ban on simple requests is undeniably a freedom of speech violation. The Head of Finance needs to ask things like that many a time. In this case they were most dispicable but not illegal. The issue of whether or not, if the Executive Branch is aware of such an action that would not be desired about to be committed, they are compelled to stop them is a more serious question to consider. We have reached the conclusion that if the executive branch is able to they should prevent an undesirable action but are not required to. They should, not must. Setting a requirement that the branch must attend to everything that their members might do is slow, daunting, and not always what is best. There are situations where this would not happen. Of course, the Executive branch could always overrule the decision of the individual executive or executives later on if it proved to be a problem.