Chapter 145: Coercion of the Council

The Judicial and Bar Council is in danger of obstruction of justice. The recent editorial of The Glass Muse has made it clear by an article with a piece of writing in persuasive rhetoric about the relevant particulars suggesting that there is an "invisible hand" working that will be responsible to a potential coercion of some of the members of the Council. Most of the facts contained in the opinion are hidden under the guise of an eloquent, yet strongly worded, language of many assertions.

In particular, the said editorial critically opines about the danger of re-interpreting the appointed powers delineated in the Constitution (without necessarily alluding to the controversial case of the South Kingdom v. Tenth Kingdom, an act which they have been barred to do in consideration of the gag order issued by the Court itself about the matter). There were many salient points made from the said editorial of the newspaper that the senior Editors seem to have gotten correctly with perfect accuracy, yet dismisses the rather obvious in the most clever way possible.

The Glass Muse's excellent literary style has, once again, proven itself to be characteristically impeccable in the face of controversy.

The said opinion speaks about the nature of the several enumerated powers and how those powers are designated within the spectrum of political bureaucracy present in the Commission on Appointments for several underlying principles. Mostly, it speaks about the historical foundations of the Commission in its desire to preserve the "perfect union of territory and powers," while the Constitution also protects the parochial interests and the "established borders" of the individual realms in its inherent right to preserve the local identity and the corresponding individual economic advancements "of the individual parts." In detail, the Editorial Board focused more in critically assessing the merits of the existing jurisprudence based on the structural methods in which the government is organized rather than the riduculous supposition based simply on the wording of the instrument, as language and style may be erroneously interpreted from the letters of the fundamental law.

"For the reader and the writer of the instrument are two agents with different appreciation of the facts and the rhetoric," the paper said.

The Glass Muse further criticized both sides of the hypothetical argument in the tendency of the Barristers "to fully commit the system" to a purely unitary interpretation while strongly ignoring the principles of fairness in the context of several features of the territorial and sovereign powers, including within its precepts the adequate determination of the appropriate situs of taxation. The clear and explicit demarcation of boundaries of the several political units are seemingly blurred in favor of political correctness, and while unity is important in the existence of the Commission as it was originally envisioned, the reserved powers appointed to parochial concerns cannot be simply ignored nor forgotten in an extended level of political and legal discourse.

More specifically, The Glass Muse emphasized in its published collective opinion on the subject matter more important points, part of which was quoted below:

For the sake of this academic discussion, we find it untenable for any individual to assert universal rights based on purely political grounds without the thorough consideration of the merits of equity, and the accompanying economic consequences of a judicial opinion sought to clarify the demarcation of the boundaries between the duties of the Commission and the rights belonging to Parochial Concerns. Power, as it is being asked to be defined mootly in this supposed immediate case through the Bar, will have its own landmark implications that may further fuel resentment towards inequity and injustice, whether by commerce or monetary value through the reasoning of implied matters in this regard, and all other peripheral questions concerning the subject will inevitably open a can of worms, purely and fundamentally, on the basis of competition and commercial interests in the exact same context of the Parochial Concerns in this parallel moot case; and as such a repulsive move that will only result in further confusion and utter diffusion of the clearly established lines of authority.

With these arguments in mind, it is worthy to note in this writing that the Editors of the authoritative paper never agreed on any of the arguments presented by the South Kingdom in its coverage of the case so far (as it has been obvious from the very beginning) while it had implied in lyrical language that there may be "evidence tampering" happening within the Council to vote strictly on political theory through outside pressures than actually upholding the integrity of the provisions of the Constitution itself. 

Many blatant warnings have been articulated in the other spaces of the opinion page by many independent intellectuals regarding the state of the upcoming general elections, as the interim Commission on Appointments is set to be dissolved by the Rector and a mandatory election is to be called. There is an alleged "power play" happening between the Tenth Kingdom and the South Kingdom, the two historical political actors who are desperately trying to control the majority of the Commission and its appointed powers, as well as securing the loyalty of the next serving Executive Secretary.

x-----------x

Picture from Pexels.