Royal Federal Republic of Free StatesBoard

• A Free State possesses the right to fair, free, transparent court proceedings, in cases civil and criminal.

• ... seek skilled representation.

• ... enlist the aid of a public defender in criminal cases.

• ... Royal Appeal to the crown sovereign when a magistrate has shown irresponsible, incompetent, or malicious disregard for the privileges, rights, facts, laws, and/or justice of the case.

• ... immunity from being charged with and from being punished for a crime ex post facto.

• ... immunity from being charged with and from being punished for the same crime more than once.

• ... the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by the considerate, proper, and just judicial procedure...

• High Crimes against the Republic

• crimes done upon foreign dignitaries by resident nations

• infractions by resident nations of treaties to which the Republic is party

• crimes committed by foreign dignitaries within the region

• infractions of Supreme Acts, including this Constitution

• crimes which as their lawful penalty include the stripping of Knightly Honors

In Article 5, Section 6 (references such as these will be denoted henceforth in the legal manner, as Ω6.5.), the text states that "The rightful purview of the judicial powers inherent to the crown" are given to include the powers "to review the legitimacy of acts, be they legislative or executive, when called to this purpose by licit authority" and "to establish precedence by prudent consideration." It is the opinion of this magistracy that these two powers show that the juridical capacity inherent to the Crown necessarily implies the ability to give considered opinions to guide executive and legislative actions when "called" to do so by "licit authority." In the region, there may be more than one licit authority, including the Senate, for example, but the Crown, as chief executive, has the privilege of seeking such opinions at-will, and having sought the opinion, is equally free to give it himself, when no Lord Proconsul has the office. After all, these are not powers created in the persons who hold the office; these powers, of the Lord Proconsul, are in fact devolved from the Crown.

So I find that it is an indisputable principle of law that whatever the crown sovereign may do with the involvement of an officer, he may do by himself when no officer is employed, excepting in any case where the Constitution explicitly says otherwise. It does not do so here.

Next, we must consider the cases of Subjugation and Annexation, and whose powers they are. The Constitution, again, is quite clear on the subject. In Ω6.4., the text says that "The rightful purview of the executive powers inherent to the crown include" the powers "to establish treaties" and "to annex, subjugate, and liberate foreign regions." Meanwhile, the corresponding section delineating legislative powers, Ω6.3., does not address annexation or subjugation, but merely "to grant final assent to treaties" and "to give or refuse assent to laws, letters, and acts which may be necessary and proper to effect the security, peace, and well-being of the Royal Federal Republic, its Free States, and its Crown." So the power of Annexation and Subjugation clearly lie entirely in the hands of the executure, originally, and not in legislative hands.

However, this raises two further questions.

First, does the legislative authority have the native capacity to lawfully make its assent necessary for the exercise of these powers as an "act" which "may be necessary and proper"?

Second, does the legislative authority already require the necessary assent for the exercise of these powers, as part of its specific power to "grant final assent to treaties"?

In answer to the second, while it may be true that at this moment, the crown sovereign currently has no Royal Senate to negotiate the passages treaties with, besides himself, it may not always be true. A future, real Senate will need this question answered, so it cannot be hand-waved with the mere fact that it's not the legitimate powers of a present, real Senate at stake.

That said, it is clear from the Constitution, as in Ω10.13. ("No licit treaty shall have the dissolution of the Republic or its bodies, abdication by the crown sovereign, or subjugation of the region by an outside power as terms."), that a treaty can have as its term a subjugation or dissolution of government with a party who is subjugated or dissolved... that is to say, there is no necessary logical contradiction. The text simply rules out any treaty which does so for the RFR as illict under Republican law; it does not rule it out as illict "under any circumstances". This means that an annexation or subjugation could very well be a term of a treaty for another region, which seeks to be annexed by or to submit to the RFR, to which our region can be a party without either logical or legal contradiction.

This does not necessitate by itself, however, that Annexation and Subjugation must be done by treaty. Elsewhere we find that the Constitution states, as in Ω10.39., that "Foreign governments, powers, and organizations" may request subjugation voluntarily to "the governing authority of the Republic and its Crown, in a manner which may be prescribed by law." To elaborate, we take the word Annexation to mean the acquisition of regional property, and Subjugation to mean the rule of regional property, by the Crown and its Republic. It is possible to have rule without acquisition, whereas it is not clear that the reverse is true. Nevertheless, I do not opine on the question of whether Annexation necessitates Subjugation, as it is sufficient for current purposes that Subjugation does not always entail Annexation, and it is Subjugation which is specified in Ω10.39. This text clearly states that this process may be prescribed by law, which universally codes for the permission of the legislature, if they insist on it by legislation.

Ergo, I find that, for Subjugation at least, the Crown naturally possesses the power to accept, or demand, or create such subjugations from foreign authorities without consulting the legislature, except where the legislative authority of the region has specifically elaborated. An explicit exception will include any treaty where subjugation of the foreign authority is a term, which makes no requirement of non-treaty subjugations.

For the power of Annexation, however, we have good reason to understand it again as a native power of the Crown. The creation of regional property is a fundamental right and power of all individual game-players of NationStates. It is enshrined in the 0th Supreme Act of the region, without which the Republic could literally not exist, that of the founding of the region. I therefore find that the personal property of the Crown is supremely inviolate and untouchable by the government without the assent of the crown sovereign.

Crown property is not the only method by which annexation may occur, however. There is also Republican annexation, of which the crown sovereign is a sovereign part, but has been limited constitutionally in many ways, so this doctrine of inviolate Crown property cannot extend ipso facto to Republican property. In fact, the text of Ω10.42. suggests, by conspicuous exception, that in general the Crown may require the assent of the legislature to create new Republican property, although this is not proof that the Crown actually or necessarily does. Once again, the text, by both explicit inclusion and implicit omission, suggests that the Crown naturally has the power of Annexation, but that the legislature may pass laws regulating this power, which may, without constitutional contradiction, regulate this power.

In both Annexation and Subjugation, the Crown takes on some level of eminence over the annexed and/or subjugated region. I find that this implication is well substantiated by Ω6.19., which allows that the crown sovereign may “run for office” or “hold positions of power or prominence in any other region” without requiring the assent of the legislature. This would logically include cases of annexation or subjugation.

Ergo, I find that the powers of Annexation and Subjugation naturally belong to the executive authority, singularly vested in the crown sovereign, and do not require the prior consent of the legislative authority, unless the legislature elaborates by means of passing law, which is then approved by the crown sovereign—further showing that, since any regulatory limitation on executive power needs to be agreed to by the limited, as well as the limiter, and a power that is not explicitly lent from its possessor must be had naturally, or else it could not be limited afterwards. The Crown can, unless regulated legislatively otherwise, acquire regional property for the Republic, accede to sovereign overlordship of any other region or organization, and accept or require the submission of another region to Republican authority, without needing the permission or instruction of the Republic, if the crown sovereign so chooses. This does not legally extend to creating formal relationships between the authorities of subjugated or annexed regions, including administration, criminal jurisdiction, legal jurisdiction, citizenship or residency equivalence, or military relations—these may be argued to require formal treaties and/or legislative regulation. However, I do not rule on that question at present.