| Court Ruling of Departments Under the Executive Branch of December 2011
|Supreme Court: 11/29/11 - 1/16/12|
|Full Case Name||Court Ruling of Departments Under the Executive Branch of December 2011|
|Esteemi Evantsu, Hik10er|
|Those working for a Department are working "under" the Executive Branch and, as such, individuals cannot hold more than two positions in one branch so Executives cannot also work under Departments.|
|Majority Opinion||Esteemi Evantsu|
This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court concluded that no person could hold two positions including those in departments. The Constitution already clearly stated that no person may participate in more than one branch in government or have more than one position in a single branch which was the subject of the dispute at hand in this ruling. Chief Ambassador Ehtya, Head of Finance Zamorak Agent, and Chief Attorney Arnold Ogamon were all called in to testify on their opinions of this case.
A) Were sections of the Diplomatic Code unconstitutional because they stated Executives could act under the Department of State?
B) Is holding powers under the Department of State forbidden to the Major Executive as well or is it part of their implied powers of office?
C) Are Departments under the Executive Branch?
On 1/16/12 (3:0):
A) Yes, as such they were removed from the Diplomatic Code
B) Yes, the Major Executive would need this power for several sections of their office. It is critical that the Major Executive can act and be more flexible then many of the other Executive positions.
C) Yes, they are a part of the Executive Branch. They are listed in the same section of the Constitution, controlled directly by it, and maintained by it.
Written by Justice Esteemi:
This case has been one of the most difficult to answer, and it was taken to more extreme definitions than it might have originally been intended to have been. The Supreme Court was asked to define what the scope of the Executive Branch was and whether or not an Executive could also perform work as someone in a department. This court has made a critical ruling on this:
Departments are under the Executive Branch, this much is clear because of the position they have under article two of the Constitution, the intent of Zerouh, and how they are managed. They are, of course, not part of the "Executives" who lead the Executive Branch but because they are managed by the Executive Branch, they should be considered part of it. Because of this, and several other practical reasons, no Executive may serve as a member of a department unless they lead it. That much is critical, absolutely critical. Executives have one job: the Executive one. If they have time to help out in a department they aren't a part of they deffinitely aren't putting enough into their job as one of the leaders of the Triumvirate.